-DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 04/09/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21 are pending in this Action. Claims 11 and 20 have been previously cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Remark
In response filed 04/09/2026, claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claims 1, 10, and 19 that the cited references do not teach the new feature of “…establish at least one connection based on user-configurable selection of any one of a plurality of data intake connection types…” of have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over the new reference, Donahue et al., US 2016/0087833.
The Examiner holds that the new combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and
Huynh discloses the feature of “configuring at least one computing device to establish at least one connection based on user-configurable selection of any one of a plurality of data intake connection types, each data intake connection type configured to facilitate the connection between the at least one computing device with at least one external computing device to access source data stored via the at least one external computing device via a distinct data access protocol” as recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19. See below for details.
Therefore, based on above explanation and reasoning, the 35 USC 35 rejection of the claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleti et al., US 11,074,196 (Aleti, hereafter) in view of Donahue et al., US 2016/0087833 (Donahue, hereafter) further in view of Sassin, US 2019/0318272 and further in view of Huynh, US 2020/0057970.
Regarding claim 1,
Aleti discloses a computer-implemented method for robust data integration, the method comprising:
configuring at least one computing device to establish at least one connection by any one of a plurality of data intake connection types, each data intake connection type configured to facilitate the connection between the at least one computing device with at least one external computing device to access source data stored via the at least one external computing device via a distinct data access protocol (See Aleti: at least Fig. 1-4, Fig. 5B-C, 6:65 to 7:15, 7:41-457, 9:28-36, 10:1-6, 18:24-59, and 60:45-55, a computer device (e.g., a client device) establishes a connection through a distinct communication protocol associated with the device to access data source in an external device through a network such as Data Intake And Query System 108); and
generating a job data object based at least in part on a user input wherein the job data object defining at least one data intake connection type of the plurality of data intake connection types accessing particular source data associated with the job data object on at least one particular external computing device (See Aleti: at least Fig. 1-4, Fig. 5B-C, 6:65 to 7:15, 7:41-457, 9:28-36, 10:1-6, 18:24-59, and 60:45-55, data defining “a connection type (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS, etc.)”).
generate a filtered job data object by applying one or more filter data objects to the job data object (See Aleti: at least Fig. 3-4, Fig. 5B-C, 25:10-33, generating filter criteria such a time range).
Although, Aleti discloses configuring at least one computing device to establish at least one connection by any one of a plurality of data intake connection types (See Aleti: at least Fig. 1-4, Fig. 5B-C, 6:65 to 7:15, 7:41-457), Aleti does not explicitly teach configuring at least one computing device to establish at least one connection based on
user configuration selection of one of a plurality of data intake connection types.
On the other hand, Donahue discloses configuring connection between devices based on user (e.g., administrator) selection of one “various types of connections including HTTP client connections, HTTP Secure (HTTPS) client connections, mutual Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) authentication client connections, and administrator specific connections” utilizing a GUI (See Donahue: at least Fig. 7 and para 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Aleti with Donahue’s teaching in order to configure at least one computing device to establish at least one connection based on user configuration selection of one of a plurality of data intake connection types. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the method allowing an administrator/user to optimize connection between devices.
The combination of Aleti and Donahue discloses retrieving data by applying the filter criteria, Aleti does not explicitly disclose retrieving relevant data from the source data by executing the filtered job data object, wherein executing the filtered job data object comprises mapping of a data schema associated with the source data to an enterprise object model.
On the other hand, Sassin discloses generating filtered data by applying filter criteria to source data and mapping data schema of source data to a target data (e.g., table or columns) of a target schema such as enterprise data warehouse (See Sassin: at least Fig. 1, Fig.4, Fig. 8, para 79-86, 152-153, and 162). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Aleti and Donahue with Sassin’s teaching in order to retrieve relevant data from the source data by executing the filtered job data object, wherein executing the filtered job data object comprises mapping of a data schema associated with the source data to an enterprise object model and access the particular at least one external computing device based at least in part on the at least one connection and the filter data objects, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve integration of data between a source device and target device using ETL mappings.
The combination of Aleti, Donahue, and Sassin discloses the limitation as stated above including mapping schema data to a target schema such as enterprise data warehouse (See Sassin: at least Fig. 1, Fig.4, Fig. 8, para 79-86, 152-153, and 162). However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the enterprise object model is customizable and associated with a particular enterprise.
On the other hand, Huynh discloses a business object model that is customizable and could be associated with a specific business or enterprise (See Huynh: at least Fig. 5-7 and para 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Aleti, Donahue, and Sassin with Huynh’s teaching in order to make the enterprise object model customizable and associated with a particular enterprise with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve process efficiency and quality customized to a particular business or enterprise.
Regarding claim 2,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses executing at
least one workflow based on the relevant data (See at least Aleti: Fig. 5A and Sassin: at least Fig. 4 and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses storing the enterprise object model in an enterprise object model database associated with a plurality of entities, and processing the stored enterprise object models to generate one or more global enterprise object models (See Sassin: at least para 33 and 152).
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein the plurality of data intake connection types comprises manual upload, pull digital integration, and push integration (See Aleti: at least Fig. 1-4, 72:48-67 and Sassin: at least Fig. 1, Fig.4, Fig. 8, para 79-86, 152-153, and 162, uploading data, sending (pushing) and receiving (pulling) data).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein the distinct data access protocol comprises one of direct database access, locally hosted API, client hosted API (See at least Aleti: Fig. 1-4 and 12:4-13 and Sassin: at least Fig. 2 and para 33).
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein the job data object comprises one or more of data source URL, data destination URL, authentication data, or data fields defined by one or more object types (See Aleti:
at least Fig. 3-5 and 9:28-33).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein generating the job data object comprises receiving the job data object from the at least one external computing device (See Aleti: at least Fig. 1-4, Fig. 5B-C, 6:65 to 7:15, 7:41-457, 9:28-36, 10:1-6, 18:24-59, and 60:45-55).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein the one or more filter data objects comprise one or more of date range, site information, or batch data (See Sassin: at least Fig.4, Fig. 8, para 79, 86, 153, and 162).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein mapping of a data schema associated with the source data to an enterprise object model comprise mapping an object type associated with the source data table to an object type associated with a data destination table (See Sassin: at least Fig. 1, Fig.4, Fig. 8, para 79-86, 152-153, and 162).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-18,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1 and 3-9, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1 and 3-9, respectively.
Regarding claim 19,
the scope of the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, and is rejected on the
same basis as set forth for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21,
the combination of Aleti, Donahue, Sassin, and Huynh discloses wherein customization of the enterprise object model comprises: defining or modifying the enterprise object model using at least a declarative mapping language or an administrative user interface, wherein the declarative mapping language or administrative user interface enables a user to specify at least object types, data fields, mapping rules, or relationships for the enterprise object model, and wherein the enterprise object model is updated based on user input received via the declarative mapping language or administrative user interface (See Huynh: at least Fig. 5-7 and para 37-39, a user interface for “IT professionals or advanced users” to edit the business object model).
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights