DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to communications filed on 3/06/2026 in which claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for provisional Application 63/531,911 filed on 8/10/2023.
Drawings
Drawings have been acknowledged and are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
Specification has been acknowledged and is acceptable for examination purposes.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea as indicated below in Step 2A Prong One. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons state below for Step 2A Prong Two. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons stated below for Step 2B.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of process in a computer system environment that is tangibly embodied in a manner so as to be executable.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim recites in part:
A method comprising:
…;
processing the structured data to determine a mapping between one or more fields of the notification format and one or more fields of a database schema, wherein the database schema is characterized by a database format;
translating a notification from the notification format into the database schema according to the mapping; and
….
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form or mental evaluation or judgement. For example, one can mentally perform the functions above using observation to process the structured data, evaluation for determining a mapping between one or more fields of the notification format and the database schema, judgment for how to translate the format from one to another. Consistent with the specification as in paragraph, [0002] this process has also been performed mentally, reciting – “different systems may provide events in different notification formats. Mapping between the notification format from a third-party and the computing platform’s database schema is a challenging process that includes an extensive knowledge of both formats.” Although it is stated that this process is challenging, this is an admission that it can be done; albeit with some difficulty.
PRONG TWO: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “system comprising: one or more processors; and memory, containing program instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors” as in claims 14 and 20, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitations of “obtaining structured data that is characterized by a notification format”, then “storing the translated notification into a database that operates according to the database schema”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results; with the additional insignificant extra-solution activity of electronic recordkeeping. The terms “obtaining”, “transmit”, “receive”, then “storing” are broad, and are forms of pre-solution data gathering, storing, and displaying that does not provide integration into a practical application because there’s no integration into a practical application.
The claim limitations are abstract ideas that are performed by the stated computing components, but general computer components such as these don’t provide integration into a practical application. The specification offers specific descriptions, but the claims themselves don’t adequately tie the computing components in with the abstract mental ideas in order to integrate the elements into a practical application. Accordingly, these recitations represent further mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, by invoking generic computer components as a tool under MPEP 2106.05(f) or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of computing components under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
The computing components as stated above represent the means on which to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similarly, the abstract ideas are performed by said computing components, and also remain mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of notification data. Additionally, this appears to be admitted and described in the specification as well-understood, routine, and conventional including at [0002] as commercially available products such as events, updates to logs, updates to metrics, and so on. As stated under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A), “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements … as a commercially available product …”
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claim as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
similar reasoning applies to claims 14 and 20.
Claims 2-4, and 6 are dependent on claim 1, and include details about a notification source, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is further mental activity in the form of data observation of the notification source. Similar claims 15 and 17 is also rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and includes a text box for which to receive the structured data, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering by an interface element. Similar claim 16 is also rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7-8 are dependent on claim 1, and include format type or context, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use in the form of a data type or format type using Json, XML or within a tree structure.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and includes displaying a representation of the mapping on a user interface, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of displaying data by interface.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and includes pre-defined textual tags, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is further mental activity in the form of data observation and judgement by adding tags which define the data.
Claims 11-13 are dependent on claim 1, and include further processing to determine mappings, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is further mental activity in the form of data observation and judgement by observing the textual tokens, or named fields and, in the case of 13, utilizing a machine learning model. Similar claims 18-19 are also rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 21-22 are dependent on claim 1, and include indications of alert type, frequency, and location based on the notification which integrates the abstract idea into practical application and adds significantly more because this indicates a clear use-case of efficiency for why the mappings are stored.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 7-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurniawan et al. US 20170345277 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kurniawan”) in view of Maurya et al. US 11500826 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Maurya”) and further in view of Johnson et al. US 20230113558 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”).
As per claim 1, Kurniawan teaches:
A method comprising:
identifying a notification source in a graphical user interface (GUI) (Kurniawan, [0042] – User interface 346 can provide (e.g., display and/or present) information to the user of mobile device 314, such as, for instance, a mobile notification of an event [0043] – User interfaces 336 and/or 346 can be graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that can include a display (e.g., a screen) that can provide and/or receive information);
determining a mapping between one or more fields of the sample notification format and one or more fields of a database schema (Kurniawan, [0026] – Translating the event into the mobile notification of the event can include mapping the event to a message template for that type of event (e.g., an alarm event is mapped to an alarm message template, a warning event is mapped to a warning message template, etc.));
storing the mapping (Kurniawan, [0026] - … mapping the event to a message template for that type of event … [0027] – Further, different message templates for different event types can be stored in database);
obtaining a notification from the notification source that is characterized by the sample notification format (Kurniawan, [0025] – The mobile notification can be, for example, a push notification having a common data format. That is, translating the event into the mobile notification can include translating the event into a push notification having a common data format);
storing the notification into a database that operates according to the database schema (Kurniawan, [0027] – Upon receiving the notification of the event, computing device 108 can determine the type of event in the notification (e.g., based on the information in the notification), and retrieve the message template for that event type from database 110. The event itself may also be stored in database 110, for use in generating mobile notifications of subsequent events).
Kurniawan doesn’t explicitly say that templates can be provided rather than preexisting, however, Ahmed teaches:
providing, to the GUI, a sample notification format of the notification source (Ahmed, [0065] – Allow pushing or dynamically loading templates, the content adaptive application may include a template abstraction layer to abstract the template designs and allow templates to be pushed to the various content adaptive applications after applications are installed and in use. Dynamically loading templates allows new template styles or new template designs to be supported, wherein loading and pushing templates is interpreted as providing templates);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurya’s invention in view of Johnson in order to translate the notification format to conform with proper mapping; this is advantageous because it allows for a mapping between original schema names and the names used in the SQL CREATE TABLE statements (Johnson, paragraph [0085]).
Kurniawan as modified doesn’t teach storing the translated notifications, however, Johnson teaches:
translating the notification from the notification format into the database schema according to the mapping (Johnson, [0087] – To complete a mapping between the tree-structured schema and the relational equivalent, there is a need of a translation table which will allow for a translation from an instance of the tree-structured schema and to an instance of the relational equivalent, and vice versa); and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurniawan’s invention as modified in view of Johnson in order to store a notification that operates according to a database schema; this is advantageous because it allows the computing device, based on receiving the notification of the event, to determine the type of event in the notification (e.g., based on the information in the notification), and retrieve the message template for that event type from database (Kurniawan, paragraph [0027]).
As per claim 3, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the notification was requested and retrieved from the notification source (Kurniawan, column 4, lines 3-8 – Users may interact with network-enabled software applications to make a network request, such as to get a file or print on a network printer. Applications may also communicate with network management software, which can interact with network hardware to transmit information between devices on the network).
As per claim 7, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample notification format is in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML) (Kurniawan, [0069] – Hypertext markup language HTML, JSON, ATOM, XML or other web or non-web based file formats to name a few).
As per claim 8, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample notification format is a nested set of fields in a tree-like structure (Johnson, [0020] – A useful property of a tree-structured schema is that there is always only one path from the root to any particular node).
As per claim 11, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the mapping between the one or more fields of the sample notification format and the one or more fields of the database schema comprises determining the mapping based on textual tokens of the sample notification format and the database schema that are identical, synonymous, or similar (Johnson, [0085] – Allows for a mapping between original schema names and the names used in the SQL CREATE TABLE statements. [0087] – Solving unmatched named fields. [0116]-[0117]).
As per claim 12, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein determining the mapping between the one or more fields of the sample notification format and the one or more fields of the database schema further comprises determining the mapping also based on named fields of the sample notification format and named elements of the database schema (Johnson, [0087] – Solving unmatched named fields. [0116]-[0117]).
Claims 14, 18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing steps recited in claims 1, 11 and with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1, 11 are applied to claims 14, 18.
Claim 20 is directed to a system performing steps recited in claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 1 is applied to claim 20.
Claims 4, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurniawan in view of Maurya in view of Johnson and further in view of Liebherr et al. US 20210168105 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Liebherr”).
As per claim 4, although Kurniawan as modified with Johnson teaches developer defined nodes, Johnson doesn’t teach that the endpoints or nodes are specified by a URL, however, Liebherr teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the notification was received from the notification source at a predefined endpoint specified by a uniform resource locator (Liebherr, [0041] – The endpoint may be identified using a webhook, a file address, or a uniform resource locator (URL)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurniawan’s invention as modified in view of Liebherr in order to clarify endpoint sources; this is advantageous because the classification based on the location of the endpoint identification may provide information regarding the extraction of data for the extraction module (Liebherr, paragraph [0041]).
As per claim 6, Kurniawan as modified with Liebherr teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample notification format was retrieved from a predefined endpoint specified by a uniform resource locator (Liebherr, [0029] – The input notification may be encoded in the JavaScript Object Notation format. The input notification 210 may be transmitted in the JavaScript Object Notation format).
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing steps recited in claims 6 and with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 6 are applied to claim 17.
Claims 5, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurniawan in view of Maurya in view of Johnson and further in view of Marin et al. US 20230032005 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Marin”).
As per claim 5, although Kurniawan as modified teaches a sample notification format, Kurniawan as modified doesn’t teach a textual input for receiving data, however, Marin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample notification format was inserted into a text box of a user interface (Marin, [0017] – The sending entity 110 may add signature blocks, input fields for textual input, and input fields for receiving attachments (e.g., images, spreadsheets, documents) in a document to be filled in by the acting entity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurya’s invention as modified in view of Marin include text fields; this is advantageous because it the system to receive data in many formats (Marin, [0002]).
As per claim 10, Maurya as modified doesn’t teach a tag, however, Marin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein translating the sample notification from the notification format into the database schema according to the mapping comprises associating the notification as represented in the database schema with one or more pre-defined textual tags (Marin, [0027] – A document may be modified by the sending entity 110 to include fields to be completed by the acting entity 120 and/or the receiving entity 130. Each envelope may also include one or more tags that identify which acting entities 120 and/or receiving entities 130 are responsible for execution of each document).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurya’s invention as modified in view of Marin include textual tags; this is advantageous because it allows the system to identify which acting entities 120 and/or receiving entities 130 are responsible for execution of each document (Marin, [0027]).
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing steps recited in claims 5 and with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 5 are applied to claim 16.
Claims 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurniawan in view of Maurya in view of Johnson and further in view of Devi et al. US 20170118240 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Devi”).
As per claim 9, Maurya as modified doesn’t adequately teach displaying the representation in an interface, however, Devi teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a representation of the mapping on a user interface, wherein the representation of the mapping is adjustable via the user interface (Devi, [0126] - [0127] – The radial cluster plot 800 can be displayed along with information 815 about each of the entities being plotted on the radial cluster plot 800. Cards 817 with information about each entity 802 can be displayed with information identifying the entity 819, the type of the entity 820 and the threat score associated with the entity 825. In some embodiments, a user can select an entity 802 on the radial cluster plot 800 to highlight the information card associated with the entity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurya’s invention as modified in view of Devi in order to provide an interface that displays the mapping; this is advantageous because it allows the user to drill down on information in a user-friendly manner (Devi, [0126] - [0127]).
As per claim 13, Maurya as modified with Devi teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the mapping between the one or more fields of the sample notification format and the one or more fields of the database schema comprises determining the mapping based on application of a trained machine learning model to the sample notification format, wherein the trained machine learning model was trained to produce mappings to database schemas for sample notification format inputs (Devi, [0109] – The relevant data fields can be pre-determined by the security analytics system or may be determined using machine learning).
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing steps recited in claims 13 and with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 13 are applied to claim 19.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurniawan in view of Maurya in view of Johnson and further in view of Eichstaedt et al. US 20070100960 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Eichstaedt”).
As per claim 21, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mapping indicates an alert type to generate based on the notification, how often alerts are transmitted, and to where the alerts are transmitted (Eichstaedt, [0032] – Subscription server 106 may request from client devices 130-132, various subscriber profile information, including, but not limited to a user identifier (user-id), user name, alert type, alert sub-type, frequency of receiving the alert, mechanism to receive the alert, RSS feed associated with an alert, or other information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurniawan’s invention as modified in view of Eichstaedt in order to store the parameters of an alert; this is advantageous because it allows the subscription service to serve an RSS-alert to any client device (Eichstaedt, paragraph [0032]).
As per claim 22, Kurniawan as modified teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
based on the notification, generating an alert in accordance with the mapping (Kurniawan, [0026] – a warning event is mapped to a warning message template, etc.) [0027] – The event itself may also be stored in database 110, for use in generating mobile notifications of subsequent events).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/06/ 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim amendments have been given full consideration, and the prior art of record has been reexamined based on the changes made to the claims. In view of these considerations and further search, the references have been remapped to more appropriately teach the claimed limitations. Applicant hasn’t made arguments pertaining to the changes other than the conclusory statement: “Applicant has not found the combination of references to teach at least these claim features in their recited arrangement.” Therefore, the remapping of the references is sufficient in addressing the claim amendments and the arguments given.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Embarmannar et al. US 20200235986 A1 teaches receiving a physical fault notification that includes hardware information about a physical device in the Telco cloud ([0007]).
Ahmed et al. US 20120047425 A1 teaches enabling content distribution for various electronic devices which comprises providing a content adaptive application for an electronic device, wherein the content adaptive application is designed to parse an abstraction schema to retrieve data or a data source, and format information (Abstract).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J. Ellis whose telephone number is (571)270-3443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
May 8, 2026
/MATTHEW J ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights