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 .
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application 18/891,203 filed on 09/20/2024.
Status of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/03/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12124513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of both the instant application and the U.S. Patent No. 12124513 are similar even the wordings of some limitations of the claims can be different.
Claim 1 of the reference U.S. Patent No. 12124513 includes all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations “identify, in the first non-transitory computer storage medium, one or more data entries storing changed information in a data set represented in the first storage format” in claim 2 of the instant application.
Thus, claim 1 and 10 of the reference U.S. Patent No. 12124513 anticipate claims 1-2 and 10-11 of the instant application, respectively. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under Non-Statutory Double-Patenting Rejection.
One of the noteworthy differences between the instant claim 1 and claim 1 of the 12124513 patent is that the 12124513 patent recites “delete the identified one or more properties from each of the identified data entries, thereby generating stripped data entries that do not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the identified data entries match properties of the second storage format; convert the stripped data entries represented in the first storage format to data entries in the second storage format” instead of “delete the identified one or more properties from the first data entry, thereby generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry” It is a general knowledge available to one of ordinary skills in the art that “generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry” can correspond to “convert the stripped data entries represented in the first storage format to data entries in the second storage format”.
Also, claim 1 of US Patent 12124513 recites “a first non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a first storage format; a second non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a second storage format”. It is a general knowledge available to one of ordinary skills in the art that the instant application includes “…one or more properties of a first data entry in a first format and a second data entry in a second format” which can correspond to “a first non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a first storage format; a second non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a second storage format”.
The remaining claims have similar differences that are of different wordings. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the patented claims (in ‘513 patent) to arrive at the instant claims according to the above stated rationale. This rationale is applied to the remaining claims.
Instant Application
US Patent 12124513
1. A computing system comprising:
one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions to at least:
automatically identify one or more properties of a first data entry in a first format that are not found in a second data entry in a second format;
delete the identified one or more properties from the first data entry, thereby generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry; and
transmit the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a non-transitory computer storage medium.
1. A computing system comprising:
a first non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a first storage format;
a second non-transitory computer storage medium configured to store one or more data set representable in a second storage format; and
one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions to at least:
identify, in the first non-transitory computer storage medium, one or more data entries storing changed information in a data set represented in the first storage format; and
transmit the one or more identified data entries in the first non-transitory computer storage medium to a pipeline configured to:
automatically identify one or more properties of the identified data entries that are not found in data entries in the second storage format;
delete the identified one or more properties from each of the identified data entries, thereby generating stripped data entries that do not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the identified data entries match properties of the second storage format;
convert the stripped data entries represented in the first storage format to data entries in the second storage format; and
transmit the converted data entries to the second non-transitory computer storage medium.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the computer system to:
identify the first data entry as storing changed information.
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.
Independent Claim 1 and 11:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A computing system …” therefore the claim is a machine.
Claim 11 recites “A computerized method...” the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1 and 11 recite limitations “…identify one or more properties of a first data entry in a first format that are not found in a second data entry in a second format”; “delete the identified one or more properties from the first data entry, thereby generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “…identify one or more properties of a first data entry in a first format that are not found in a second data entry in a second format” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a judgment or evaluation process. One of ordinary skills in the art can read and identify properties of a first format and a second format, then determine properties that can be found in one format but not in the other. The properties can be compared between the formats and the properties that are not found in both formats can be flagged to be identified.
Limitation “delete the identified one or more properties from the first data entry, thereby generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a generic deletion process. One of ordinary skills in the art can identify the properties that are up for deletion and subsequently remove it from the set of properties. The remaining properties that are considered as valid can be identified as stripped data.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “automatically identify…”. The limitation amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The claim recites the additional elements “transmit the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a non-transitory computer storage medium”. The limitation amounts to mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “automatically identify…” and “transmit the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a non-transitory computer storage medium” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2 and 12:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 2 and 12 recite limitations “identify the first data entry as storing changed information”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “identify the first data entry as storing changed information” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a simple identification process. One of ordinary skills in the art can identify data that corresponds to changed information.
Dependent claims 3 and 13:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “perform periodic checks to automatically detect changes in the properties of the first data entry”. The limitation amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “perform periodic checks to automatically detect changes in the properties of the first data entry” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 4 and 14:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 4 and 14 recite limitations “map relationships between the first data entry and one or more other data entries based on common properties”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “map relationships between the first data entry and one or more other data entries based on common properties” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a mapping process where data is mapped to other data based on common properties. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine properties of each data and link the data that have similar properties together to form relationships between the data.
Dependent claims 5 and 15:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “store a backup of the first data entry before the one or more properties are deleted”. The limitation amounts to mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “store a backup of the first data entry before the one or more properties are deleted” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 6 and 16:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 6 and 16 recite limitations “determine whether the first data entry is linked to or used by other programs before deleting the identified one or more properties”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “determine whether the first data entry is linked to or used by other programs before deleting the identified one or more properties” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a judgement or evaluation process. One of ordinary skills in the art can read a data entry and identify whether the data is link to any other information or programs.
Dependent claims 7 and 17:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 7 and 17 recite limitations “validate the stripped data entry against a predefined set of rules to ensure compatibility with the second format before transmission”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “validate the stripped data entry against a predefined set of rules to ensure compatibility with the second format before transmission” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a validation process on the available data. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine a predefined set of rules and ensure that the data is complied with the rules.
Dependent claims 8 and 18:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “schedule the data transformation process to occur at specified intervals or in response to a trigger event”. The limitation amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “schedule the data transformation process to occur at specified intervals or in response to a trigger event” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 9 and 19:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “transmit the stripped data entry to multiple non-transitory computer storage media”. The limitation amounts to mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “transmit the stripped data entry to multiple non-transitory computer storage media” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 10 and 20:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 10 and 20 recite limitations “alert a user upon successful transmission of the stripped data entry to the non-transitory computer storage medium”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system”, “hardware processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “alert a user upon successful transmission of the stripped data entry to the non-transitory computer storage medium” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper creating an alert indication for data that is successfully transmitted. One of ordinary skills in the art can identify data transmitted to a storage media and can create an alert message indicating that the data is successfully transmitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias (US PGPUB 20060271566) “Mathias” in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent 10915507) “Cheng”.
Regrading claim 1, Mathias teaches a computing system comprising: one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions (col 15 line 60-67) to at least: automatically identify one or more properties of a first data entry in a first format that are not found in a second data entry in a second format ([0017]: Each of the property pairs 31 comprises a back end property 33 associated with the back end schema node 23 and a front end property 35 associated with the front end schema node 25. In the example depicted in FIG. 1, Front End Property A and Back End Property A comprise a property pair… [0018] In one example, the listing of property pairs 31 is extensible. Thus, expanding the set of property pairs 31 being converted from one schema to another is readily achievable where the property pairs have a predetermined type… [0031]: The method may also comprise deleting, at 89, a property 51 of the back end data object 47 when the property does not have a corresponding matching property 43 in the front end data object 39. This deletion ensures that the back end data object 47 has no properties 51 not included in the front end data object 39… Examiner’s note: The system determines properties of data in one schema that is different from other schemas for deletion, thus the properties are identified); delete the identified one or more properties from the first data entry, thereby generating a stripped data entry that does not include the identified one or more properties such that properties of the first data entry match properties of the second data entry ([0031] The method may also comprise deleting, at 89, a property 51 of the back end data object 47 when the property does not have a corresponding matching property 43 in the front end data object 39. This deletion ensures that the back end data object 47 has no properties 51 not included in the front end data object 39. In another example, the method may further comprise deleting, also at 89, a property 51 of the back end data object 47 when the property is not provided with a value from a matching property 43 in the front end data object 39).
Mathias does not explicitly teach transmit the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a non-transitory computer storage medium.
Cheng teaches transmit the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a non-transitory computer storage medium (Fig 3 & Col 8 line 12-31: The serializer causes the data to be transformed into the requested schema… Converting the data to meet a requested schema may include performing any type of operation on the data including logical or arithmetic operations. For example, some data fields may be discarded by an automatic conversion module, such as the automatic conversion module described with reference to numeral 220 in FIG. 2, whereas others may be operated upon by a user conversion function, such as the user conversion function described with reference to numeral 218 in FIG. 2, to produce the data meeting the sought after schema… Col 9 line 46-50: As shown in FIG. 5, in response to making the call, the serializer receives the converted data from the conversion handler. Further, the serializer provides the converted data to the run-time execution environment as a run-time data object…Examiner’s note: The system converts data from one schema to a requested schema wherein the conversion can include discarding data fields. The system then provides the converted data to the run-time execution environment which can correspond to transmitting a stripped data entry to a non-transitory computer storage medium). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cheng teachings in the Mathias system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate providing converted data that includes particular data fields discarded taught by Cheng in the Mathias system so only desired data with particular data fields are considered for conversion and transmission, thus can reduce the cost, increase processing speed, which can associate to improving the performance of system. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias further teaches map relationships between the first data entry and one or more other data entries based on common properties (Fig. 1 & [0017]: Each of the property pairs 31 comprises a back end property 33 associated with the back end schema node 23 and a front end property 35 associated with the front end schema node 25. In the example depicted in FIG. 1, Front End Property A and Back End Property A comprise a property pair. Similarly, Front End Property B and Back End Property B comprise a property pair. Any number of additional property pairs 31 may be included without departing from the scope of the claimed invention…[0018]: Thus, expanding the set of property pairs 31 being converted from one schema to another is readily achievable where the property pairs have a predetermined type. ).
Regarding claim 5, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias does not explicitly teach store a backup of the first data entry before the one or more properties are deleted.
Cheng teaches store a backup of the first data entry before the one or more properties are deleted (Col 7 line 53-65: FIG. 3 shows an example of a method for schema conversion of data in accordance with at least one embodiment. In the process 300, a serializer, such as the serializer described with reference to numeral 204 in FIG. 2, stores 302 data and a schema identifier associated with the data in a data store… Examiner’s note: The data is stored in a data store with corresponding information such as a schema identifier, thus the data is stored before transformation of data to the requested schema is made). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cheng teachings in the Mathias system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate storing backup copy of data taught by Cheng in the Mathias system to prevent data loss or enhance data security. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias does not explicitly teach determine whether the first data entry is linked to or used by other programs before deleting the identified one or more properties.
Cheng teaches determine whether the first data entry is linked to or used by other programs before deleting the identified one or more properties (Col 7 line 53-65: In the process 300, a serializer,… stores 302 data and a schema identifier associated with the data in a data store. The data may be an outcome of the execution of a computer program and has an associated schema that may be specified by the computer program. When storing the data in the data store, the serializer may cause the schema information or an identifier associated with the schema to be stored along with the data, whereby the data and schema identifier or the schema information may be linked or associated with one another in the data store…Examiner’s note: The data can be linked to programs such as associated schema or schema information and they are linked before any discarding data fields is done). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cheng teachings in the Mathias system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate linking information to data entries taught by Cheng in the Mathias system to improve data organization by associating information relating to the data with the particular data. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias does not explicitly teach validate the stripped data entry against a predefined set of rules to ensure compatibility with the second format before transmission.
Cheng teaches validate the stripped data entry against a predefined set of rules to ensure compatibility with the second format before transmission (Col 8 line 12-31: The serializer retrieves 306 the data and associated schema identifier in response to the data request. The serializer also causes 308 the data to be transformed into the requested schema. A conversion handler, such as the conversion handler described with reference to numeral 206 in FIG. 2, may be responsible for converting data from one schema to another. The serializer may cause the retrieved data to be provided to the conversion handler and the conversion handler may convert the data in accordance with data conversion information included with or accompanying a computer program. Converting the data to meet a requested schema may include performing any type of operation on the data including logical or arithmetic operations. For example, some data fields may be discarded by an automatic conversion module, such as the automatic conversion module described with reference to numeral 220 in FIG. 2, whereas others may be operated upon by a user conversion function, such as the user conversion function described with reference to numeral 218 in FIG. 2, to produce the data meeting the sought after schema…Examiner’s note: The conversion data to a requested format is handled in accordance with data conversion information included with or accompanying a computer program, thus the data can be validated or checked with certain rules and format to produce the data meeting the sought after schema). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cheng teachings in the Mathias system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate validating or checking data with particular rules or programs in the transformation process taught by Cheng in the Mathias system to ensure data is in proper format for particular desired schema, thus reduces errors and improve the performance of the system. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias does not explicitly teach schedule the data transformation process to occur at specified intervals or in response to a trigger event (Col 8 line 12-15: The serializer retrieves 306 the data and associated schema identifier in response to the data request. The serializer also causes 308 the data to be transformed into the requested schema…Examiner’s note: The data transformation process can occur in response to a trigger event such as receiving a request). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cheng teachings in the Mathias system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate data transformation executed in response to a trigger taught by Cheng in the Mathias system to handle requests efficiently thus can also improve user experience. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, note the rejections of claim 1. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 14, note the rejections of claim 4. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 15, note the rejections of claim 5. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 16, note the rejections of claim 6. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 17, note the rejections of claim 7. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 18, note the rejections of claim 8. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias (US PGPUB 20060271566) “Mathias” in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent 10915507) “Cheng” and Krog Iverson (US PGPUB 20180336228) “Krog Iverson”.
Regarding claim 2, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach identify the first data entry as storing changed information.
Krog Iverson teaches identify the first data entry as storing changed information ([0045]: In block 308, the method of automating data infrastructure 300 creates core data movement infrastructure to get data from large data sources 110 to core data storage. In a preferred embodiment, Core Data Movement Infrastructure moves data from Data Source to core data storage 202 on a periodic basis (e.g., daily, hourly, etc). Additionally, core data movement infrastructure 208 may move data incrementally, meaning that only new or newly modified data will be moved during each update period. This incrementally updated data may be placed in a file folder associated with the period, so that all of the data from one incremental load will be contained in a single folder…Examiner’s note: New or newly modified data can correspond to changed information and they are identified by the system for moving from one infrastructure to another). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Krog Iverson teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate identifying new or newly modified data to move from one source to another taught by Krog Iverson in the Mathias and Cheng system so only changed or updated data is consider as part of the process, thus can reduce the cost and improve the processing speed of the system. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach perform periodic checks to automatically detect changes in the properties of the first data entry.
Krog Iverson teaches perform periodic checks to automatically detect changes in the properties of the first data entry ([0045] In block 308, the method of automating data infrastructure 300 creates core data movement infrastructure to get data from large data sources 110 to core data storage. In a preferred embodiment, Core Data Movement Infrastructure moves data from Data Source to core data storage 202 on a periodic basis (e.g., daily, hourly, etc). Additionally, core data movement infrastructure 208 may move data incrementally, meaning that only new or newly modified data will be moved during each update period… Examiner’s note: New or newly data are detected periodically to move from one location to another). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Krog Iverson teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate moving newly modified data in a periodic basis taught by Krog Iverson in the Mathias and Cheng system to evenly distribute the load or to execute the task at specified time, thus can improve the overall performance of the system. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, note the rejections of claim 2. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 13, note the rejections of claim 3. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias (US PGPUB 20060271566) “Mathias” in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent 10915507) “Cheng” and Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20180260458) “Huang”.
Regarding claim 9, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach transmit the stripped data entry to multiple non-transitory computer storage media.
Huang teaches transmit the stripped data entry to multiple non-transitory computer storage media ([0023]: Non-relational database server 140 may be configured to host and/or otherwise maintain one or more databases, such as one or more non-relational databases maintained in a non-relational schema, such as NoSQL…[0044] At step 214, data transformation computing platform 110 may move the transformed data from cluster server nodes 115 to non-relational database server 140… Examiner’s note: The system moves the transformed data from cluster server nodes to non-relational database server wherein the non-relational database server maintain one or more databases, such as one or more non-relational databases which can correspond to multiple non-transitory computer storage media). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Huang teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate moving data to multiple storage media taught by Huang in the Mathias and Cheng system to improve the distribution capability of the system where one entity can communicate and share data across different entities . This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Mathias in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach alert a user upon successful transmission of the stripped data entry to the non-transitory computer storage medium.
Huang teaches alert a user upon successful transmission of the stripped data entry to the non-transitory computer storage medium ([0046] In some instances, responsive to and/or after moving the transformed data from the plurality of nodes associated with the computing platform to the second database maintained by the second database server, data transformation computing platform 110 may direct and/or otherwise cause a computing device, such as administrative computing device 120, to display and/or otherwise present a graphical user interface similar to graphical user interface 400, which is illustrated in FIG. 4. As seen in FIG. 4, graphical user interface 400 may include information notifying a user of administrative computing device 120 that a data migration process has been completed, as well as information associated with the data migration process that has been completed). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Huang teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate notifying a user a data migration process has been completed taught by Huang in the Mathias and Cheng system to improve user experience and enhance data security and compliance in a system. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, note the rejections of claim 9. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 20, note the rejections of claim 10. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Prior Art
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fox et al. (US PGPUB 20030120665) is directed to routing and transforming data in the form of messages between a source application and a target application, including a plug-in for preparing requests to the run-time transformation server and for processing responses from the run-time transformation server.
Lachambre et al. (US PGPUB 20190251180) is directed to migrating clients between databases with different schemas. A database migrator may identify a first database accessible by the client including a first data object maintained in accordance with a first schema. The database migrator may generate, using the first database, a second database including the first data object from the first database. The database migrator may store, onto the second database in accordance with a second schema, a second data object received by the first database subsequent to generation of the second database. The database migrator may convert the first data object of the second database from the first schema to the second schema. The database migrator may migrate the client from the first database to the second database responsive to the completion of storing and converting.
Goldberg et al. (US PGPUB 20140108434) is directed to a network service converting the data based on comparing the first format with the second format and modifying at least one data field associated with the first format to correspond to at least one data field associated with the second format. For example, the network service can compare a format(s) of the data received from the entity and modify/update the format such that it is compatible with the network service. This can include identifying whether one or more data fields in the format should be added, removed, or changed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO DANG VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 EST.
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, 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 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.
/C.D.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2153 04/01/2026
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153