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 Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 05/12/2026
Claims 1-20 pending. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and addressed. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s arguments stating that the filtering elements are standard elements that do not reflect the browsing pattern.
Examiner respectively disagrees.
Firstly, the claims do explicitly teach that personalization element are dynamically generated based the browsing patten. Secondly, Deshpande in paragraph [0019] and [0058], teaches that the Virtual application is generated based on user interaction with web browser application which means that the filtering criteria is linked the browsing activity.
The 892 reference 10198524 also read on the argued limitation:
10198524 (Column 7, lines 27-41 and column 8, lines 19-55)
20160299661 (Paragraphs [0035], [0042])
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of U.S. Patent No 12099625. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The Patent anticipated the instant claims
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 1-4, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu et al (hereinafter Chu) US Patent No 10642856 and Suyog Deshpande (hereinafter Deshpande) US Publication No 20140208215 in view of David La Placa (hereinafter La Placa) US Publication No. 20170357901.
As per claim 1, Chu teaches:
A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to:
provide a data listing interface comprising a first graphical representation of each of a plurality of data listings published on a data exchange, wherein the plurality of data listings includes a data listing referencing a data share of a portion of a database;
(Fig. 1 and Abstract and column 4, lines 10-17 and Column 5, lines 43-67 and column 7, lines 14-28)
personalize, based on a browsing pattern of a user, the data listing interface with a browsing path, wherein the browsing path comprises: at least one of a provider, a category, or a business needs;
(Column 6, lines 40-62, wherein the filtering of data is personalization/customization of the listing interface and wherein the filtering criteria including users profession/location is the filtering category as recited in paragraph [0051] of the instant specification)
and displayed data listings having previously accessed content;
(Column 10, lines 61-67 and Column 11, lines 13-20, wherein stored data/listing is the previously accessed content)
Chu teaches filtering criteria but does not explicitly teach personalize, based on a browsing pattern of a user, the data listing interface with a browsing path, wherein the browsing path comprises: at least one of a provider menu, a category menu, or a business needs menu, however in analogous art of data management, Deshpande teaches:
personalize, based on a browsing pattern of a user, the data listing interface with a browsing path, wherein the browsing path comprises: at least one of a provider menu, a category menu, or a business needs menu;
(Fig. 5-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0036]-[0039] and [0044], wherein the dropdown filter menu options is the menu)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande by incorporating the teaching of Deshpande into the method of Chu. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Deshpande into the system of Chu for the purpose of enabling user to select filtering criteria and dynamically rendering content accordingly.
Chu and Deshpande disclose account data selection but do not explicitly teach and in response to the reception of the indication of the selection of the data listing, cause data of the data share referenced by the data listing to be imported to an account of an entity in the data exchange, however in analogous art of content management, La Placa teaches:
receive an indication of a selection of the data listing in the data listing interface;
(Paragraphs [0104] and [0106])
and in response to the reception of the indication of the selection of the data listing, cause data of the data share referenced by the data listing to be imported to an account of an entity in the data exchange.
(Paragraphs [0104] and [0106])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande and La Placa by incorporating the teaching of La Placa into the method of Chu and Deshpande. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of La Placa into the system of Chu and Deshpande for the purpose of creating account data based on content of interest.
As per claim 2, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the browsing path further comprises suggested keywords to use in a keyword search bar to filter the plurality of data listings.
(Fig. 5-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0036]-[0039] and [0044], wherein the filter dropdown includes account name (keyword) )(Deshpande)
As per claim 3, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further to: responsive to a reception of an indication of a selection of the business needs menu, provide, in the data listing interface, a list of use cases;
(FIG. 3 and paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0044] and [0051], wherein the filter based on a division of the company is the business need and sale report data is the use case )(Deshpande)
and responsive to a reception of an indication of a selection of a use case in the list of use cases, remove, from the data listing interface, a subset of data listings in the plurality of data listings, wherein the subset of data listings fails to be tagged with the use case, and wherein the data listing is tagged with the use case.
(Column 5, lines 43-67, wherein metadata used by business intelligence is the tag)(Chu) and (FIG. 3 and paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0044] and [0051], wherein the filter based on a division of the company is the business need and sale report data/performance is the use case )(Deshpande)
As per claim 4, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa teach:
The system of claim 3, wherein the use case is based on at least one of a tag received data providers that provide the plurality of data listings or data consumers that consume the plurality of data listings.
(Column 5, lines 43-67, wherein metadata used by business intelligence is the tag)(Chu) and (FIG. 3 and paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0044] and [0051], wherein the filter based on a division of the company is the business need and sale report data/performance is the use case )(Deshpande)
As per claim 8, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further to: provide, in the data listing interface, metadata for each of the plurality of data listings, wherein the metadata comprises a use case for the data listing.
(Column 5, lines 43-66)(Chu)
As per claim 10, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the provider menu, the category menu, or the business needs menu comprises at least one of a provider drop down menu, a category drop down menu, or a business needs drop down menu, respectively.
(Fig. 5-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0036]-[0039] and [0044], wherein the dropdown filter menu option is the category menu)( Deshpande)
Claims 11-14 and 16 are method claims respectively corresponding to system claims 1-4 and 8 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-4 and 8.
Claims 17-20 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims respectively corresponding to system claims 1-4 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu and Deshpande and La Placa in view of McLaughlin et al (hereinafter McLaughlin) US Publication No. 20150106687.
As per claim 5, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa do not explicitly teach responsive to the reception of the indication of the selection of the use case in the list of use cases, add, to a result listing uniform resource location (URL), however in an analogous art of content management, McLaughlin teaches:
responsive to the reception of the indication of the selection of the use case in the list of use cases, add, to a result listing uniform resource location (URL);
(Paragraphs [0039], [0048], [0071], [0137] and [0150])
and store the result listing URL for use by the account.
(Paragraphs [0039], [0048], [0071], [0137] and [0150])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande and La Placa and McLaughlin by incorporating the teaching of McLaughlin into the method of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of McLaughlin into the system of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa for the purpose of generating web content that adhere to user preference/interest.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu and Deshpande and La Placa in view of Mooney et al (hereinafter Mooney) US Patent No. 11321286.
As per claim 6, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa do not explicitly teach receive feedback pertaining to a quality of the plurality of data listings, however in an analogous art of content management, Mooney teaches:
receive feedback pertaining to a quality of the plurality of data listings;
(Column 5, lines 20-31 and Column 29, lines 13-32)
and assign a score each of the plurality of data listings based on the feedback, wherein to provide the data listing interface, the processing device is to order each of the plurality of data listings based on the score.
(Column 5, lines 20-31 and Column 29, lines 13-32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande and La Placa and Mooney by incorporating the teaching of Mooney into the method of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Mooney into the system of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa for the purpose of improving data analytics by quantifying the data quality.
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 6 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu and Deshpande and La Placa in view of Bar-on et al (hereinafter Bar-on) US Patent No. 20220200937.
As per claim 7, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa do not explicitly teach and provide, in the data listing interface and based on the at least one of the search history or the interaction history, a recommendation of a compilation of data listings including at least one of a data set, a data service, or a tool, however in an analogous art of content management, Bar-on teaches:
obtain at least one of a search history of a data consumer or an interaction history of the data consumer with respect to the data listing interface;
(Paragraphs [0007], [0010]-[0011], [0032] and [0039])
and provide, in the data listing interface and based on the at least one of the search history or the interaction history, a recommendation of a compilation of data listings including at least one of a data set, a data service, or a tool.
(Paragraphs [0007], [0010]-[0011], [0032] and [0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande and La Placa and Bar-on by incorporating the teaching of Bar-on into the method of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Bar-on into the system of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa for the purpose of optimizing data usage based on user interaction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu and Deshpande and La Placa in view of Kuruganti et al (hereinafter Kuruganti) US Patent No. 20110302133.
As per claim 9, Chu and Deshpande and La Placa do not explicitly teach cause the data of the data share referenced by the data listing to be imported to the account of the entity in the data exchange, the processing device is to: create, in the account, a local replica of the data share, however in an analogous art of content management, Kuruganti teaches:
cause the data of the data share referenced by the data listing to be imported to the account of the entity in the data exchange, the processing device is to: create, in the account, a local replica of the data share;
(Paragraphs [0056], [0074] and [0081])
and replicate a set of objects associated with the data to a local database replica.
(Paragraphs [0056], [0074] and [0081])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Chu and Deshpande and La Placa and Kuruganti by incorporating the teaching of Kuruganti into the method of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Kuruganti into the system of Chu and Deshpande and La Placa for the purpose of synchronizing shared data across plurality of tenants and managing data accessibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights