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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 26 November 2025.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 26 November 2025:
a. Rejections of claims 9-10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
b. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 9-11 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B. Applicant asserts the following:
“The combination of the scheduler operating at regular intervals, the identification of uncompleted tables by the scheduler, and the progress table storing identifiers of last transformed records creates a specific technological system that addresses the technical challenges of large-scale data transformation in live production environments. This represents a concrete improvement to the functioning of database management systems ”(Remarks, page 11, second full paragraph).
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Applicant is advised that claims in a pending application must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP § 2111. Furthermore, with regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II). Applicant has failed to construe the claims under their BRI, and as a result, Applicant’s remarks are not directed to the claimed invention (as construed under the BRI). For example, Applicant asserts that the claimed invention “addresses technical challenges of large-scale data transformation in live production environments.” However, the claims do not recite any “live production environment” nor do they recite any “large-scale data transformation.” As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case involving transformation of a small dataset, e.g. just a few data records. Hence, the argument for a practical application and/or inventive concept based on “large-scale data transformation in live production environments” is unpersuasive because the BRI of the claims requires neither large-scale data transformation nor a live production environment. In addition, Applicant asserts that “This represents a concrete improvement to the functioning of database management systems.” However, the claims do not recite any database nor any database management system. The BRI of the claims does not require these features. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, without significantly more.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1 and 11 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
c. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, these claims recite “generating a data transformation plan comprising multiple steps, wherein each step of the multiple steps comprises at least one table storing data to transform according to the data transformation” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 20). The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this limitation encompasses a simple case of just two steps and just two tables, each table storing just a few records. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally perform the claimed “generating” with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize a data transformation plan comprising two steps, each step having a corresponding table with a small amount of data. In addition, a human could draw out on a piece of paper a simple data transformation plan that fulfills the BRI of the claim, as set forth above. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “determining, by a scheduler operating at regular intervals, that a number of running steps is less than a maximum number of running steps” and “upon determining that the number of running steps is less than the maximum number of running steps, identifying, by the scheduler, an uncompleted table in the data transformation plan” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 20). The claimed “determining” and “identifying” amount to no more than judgements or evaluations. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the necessary judgements/evaluations to achieve the claimed “determining” and “identifying.” Furthermore, a human can act as a scheduler, performing operations at regular intervals. Hence, these limitations can be fully performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, and hence they are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processing” grouping.
These claims also recite “transforming an uncompleted record in the uncompleted table to generate a transformed record and updating the uncompleted table with the transformed record” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 20). Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed “transforming” and “updating the uncompleted table,” especially with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, transforming an uncompleted record could be as simple as writing out the data record in a different format, and updating the uncompleted table could be as simple as writing the transformed record into the uncompleted table. Hence, these limitations are also abstract ideas under the “Mental Processing” grouping.
These claims also recite “updating a progress table to track progress of transforming the uncompleted table, wherein the progress table stores an identifier of a last transformed record in the uncompleted table” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 20). Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed “updating a progress table,” especially with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could draw out on a piece of paper a progress table and the human could update the progress table in the manner recited in the claim. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processing” grouping. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receiving information defining a data transformation” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 20);
b) “One or more computer-readable storage media” (claim 11); and
c) “a processing system operatively coupled with the one or more computer-readable storage media” (claim 20).
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (b) and (c) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (b) and (c) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2 and 12, these claims recite “further comprising, prior to identifying the uncompleted table in the data transformation plan, determining that a number of running data transformation plans is less than a maximum number of running data transformation plans” (claim 2, and a similar limitation of claim 12). The claimed “determining” amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, these claims are also abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 3 and 13, these claims recite “further comprising: upon determining that that the number of running data transformation plans is less than the maximum number of running data transformation plans, determining that a next data transformation plan that is not running is inside a transform time window.” The claimed “determining” (i.e. both determining the number of running data transformation plans and determining that a next data transformation plan that is not running is inside a transform time window) amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, these limitations are also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite “initiating the next data transformation plan.” This limitation can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, as set forth above in the parent claims. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 4 and 14, these claims recite “determining that the data transformation plan is outside a transform time window.” The claimed “determining” amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite “terminating the data transformation plan.” This limitation can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, as set forth above in the parent claims. This would merely require the human to cease performance of steps of the data transformation plan, which can be achieved mentally, as detailed above in the parent claims. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 5 and 15, these claims recite “further comprising generating a second data transformation plan comprising multiple steps, wherein each step of the multiple steps of the second data transformation plan comprises at least one table storing data to transform according to the data transformation.” The claimed “generating” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping for the same reasons that the claimed “generating” of parent claims 1 and 11 was deemed an abstract idea.
As to dependent claims 6 and 16, these claims recite “further comprising, upon transforming the uncompleted record and updating the uncompleted table with the transformed record, updating the progress table indicating that the uncompleted record was transformed.” For the same reasons set forth above with regards to the parent claims, the claimed “updating” can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, these claims are also abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 7 and 17, these claims recite “further comprising, after transforming the uncompleted record and updating the uncompleted table with the transformed record: determining that the uncompleted table comprises no additional uncompleted records; and updating the progress table indicating that transforming the uncompleted table according to the data transformation is complete.” The claimed “determining” amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, the claimed “determining” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. For the same reasons set forth above with regards to the parent claims, the claimed “updating” can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, the claimed “updating” is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 8-10 and 18-19, these claims recite “identifying” and “determining” limitations, all of which are mentally performable judgements/evaluations. Hence “identifying” and “determining” limitations in these claims are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Claim 8 also recites “transforming every uncompleted record in the second uncompleted table,” which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI the of claims. Hence, the claimed “transforming” is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite various “updating” limitations. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, a human could mentally perform the claimed “updating” with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, the “updating” limitations of these claims are also abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163