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 Final Office Action is in response to the application 18/891,203 filed on 07/31/2026.
Status of claims:
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, and 17 are amended in this Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/31/2026 is in
compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
DOUBLE PATENTING
Applicant indicated in the remarks filed on 07/31/2026 (page 7) that a terminal disclaimer is filed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c). Therefore, the rejections made under nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the previous office action are now withdrawn after considering the applicant’s remarks and the terminal disclaimer.
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/2026 (pages 7-9) regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and the amendments submitted have been fully considered. The rejections made under 35 U.S.C 101 in the previous office action are now withdrawn after considering the applicant’s remarks and amendments.
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/2026 (pages 9-11) regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. However, after further examination, new grounds of rejection are presented necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
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 1-8 and 11-18 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” and Anderson et al. (US PGPUB 20190188309) “Anderson”.
Regrading claim 1, Mathias teaches a computing system ([0017]) comprising: one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions to implement a plurality of mapping pipelines, the instructions causing the one or more hardware processors to at least: automatically identify, in the filtered data set, one or more properties of a first data entry in the first storage format that are not found in a second data entry in a second storage 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: A property in a backend data object can correspond to a filtered data set, where it is selected to determine whether a matching property is found in another data object location. The system determines properties of data in one schema is not found in the other location with another schema.); delete, via a transformation block of the mapping pipeline, 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… Examiner’s note: The system deletes properties of a data object that are not matched with properties of another data object. Properties after the deletion process can correspond to stripped data entry).
Mathias does not explicitly teach monitor one or more data sets stored in a first storage format in a first data store by periodically transmitting a polling request to the first data store; identify changes to one or more data entries in the first data store by using an input bit or data entry property indicating that the stored information has been altered to detect discrepancies between a received data entry and a previous version of the data entry; filter the received data entries incrementally prior to passing the filtered data set to the mapping pipeline to reduce storage demands on the computing system; transmit, via one or more digital communication network, the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a second data store such that the stripped data entry is recognizable by the second data store using the second storage format.
Cheng teaches transmit, via one or more digital communication network, the stripped data entry, without the identified one or more properties, to a second data store such that the stripped data entry is recognizable by the second data store using the second storage format (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 second data store). 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.
Mathias in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach monitor one or more data sets stored in a first storage format in a first data store by periodically transmitting a polling request to the first data store; identify changes to one or more data entries in the first data store by using an input bit or data entry property indicating that the stored information has been altered to detect discrepancies between a received data entry and a previous version of the data entry; filter the received data entries incrementally prior to passing the filtered data set to the mapping pipeline to reduce storage demands on the computing system.
Anderson teaches monitor one or more data sets stored in a first storage format in a first data store by periodically transmitting a polling request to the first data store ([0028]: FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for tracking changes to data within a database system employing mirroring according to illustrative embodiments… [0029]: When the connection manager 160 determines that the connection is not active between the primary and the secondary database, a change detection procedure is implemented. This is illustrated at step 220. The connection manager 160 causes the change manager 170 to start monitoring the primary database 110 for changes to the corresponding rows of the database… Examiner’s note: The system monitors the primary database requested by the connection manager and the change manager that triggers by a connection manager. Thus, the request to monitor the database can be executed periodically such that when the connection is not active between the primary and the secondary database.); identify changes to one or more data entries in the first data store by using an input bit or data entry property indicating that the stored information has been altered to detect discrepancies between a received data entry and a previous version of the data entry ([0030]: As the user makes a change to a particular row in the primary database 110, a byte in the metadata 140 associated with that row is changed to indicate that the row is changed. This is illustrated at step 240. For example, the value of the change indicator can go from 0 to 1… In some embodiments as the user continues to make changes to the particular row, the change indicator in the metadata 140 can increment to indicate how many changes have been made to a particular row. In this embodiment, additional information can be extracted from the single change indicator that may be informative or useful to an administrator… The process of step 240 repeats for each row that is changed until such time as the connection between the primary database 110 and the secondary database 150 is restored… Examiner’s note: Changes are identified for data in the primary database with indicators indicating what data is changed in each change made to the data. Users can extract changed data from a change indicator from many increments of changes made to a particular data. This can correspond to identifying data altered with discrepancies between a received data entry and a previous version of the data entry); filter the received data entries incrementally prior to passing the filtered data set to the mapping pipeline to reduce storage demands on the computing system ([0031]: Next the process queries the primary database 110 to identify all of the rows that have changed since the outage… The query simply queries either the metadata 140 or the row holding the change indicator, for records that have a value indicating that the row has been changed… The results of the query are then provided to the change manager 170… [0032] The change manager 170 receives the results of the query and causes the rows that were changed to be updated in the secondary database 150… Examiner’s note: The system determines the changed data and collect the changed data to provide it to another entity. Thus, data can be filtered to particular properties and pass it to another entity.). 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 Anderson teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate monitoring database for changes taught by Anderson in the Mathias and Cheng system to determine and process on required data such as changed data. This can reduce the cost of the system since not all data will be needed to process and transmit to another entity but only the detected data such as changed data. This close relation between of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson 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.
Anderson teaches identify the first data entry as storing changed information ([0031]: Next the process queries the primary database 110 to identify all of the rows that have changed since the outage… The query simply queries either the metadata 140 or the row holding the change indicator, for records that have a value indicating that the row has been changed. Any method for querying the database can be used. The results of the query are then provided to the change manager 170… Examiner’s note: The data monitored and extracted from the primary database is changed data/information). Please refer to claim 1 for the motivational statement.
Regarding claim 3, Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson 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.
Anderson teaches perform periodic checks to automatically detect changes in the properties of the first data entry [0029] When the connection manager 160 determines that the connection is not active between the primary and the secondary database, a change detection procedure is implemented. This is illustrated at step 220. The connection manager 160 causes the change manager 170 to start monitoring the primary database 110 for changes to the corresponding rows of the database.… Examiner’s note: The primary database is monitored for changed data from time to time manner such as when an event is detected like connection is not active between the databases.). 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 Anderson teachings in the Mathias and Cheng system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate monitoring database for changes in a periodic manner taught by Anderson in the Mathias and Cheng system to ensure the changed data is monitored and extracted within a desired time, thus can strengthen the performance of the system. This close relation between of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 storage format before transmission.
Cheng teaches validate the stripped data entry against a predefined set of rules to ensure compatibility with the second storage 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.
Cheng teaches 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 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.
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 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”, Anderson et al. (US PGPUB 20190188309) “Anderson” and Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20180260458) “Huang”.
Regarding claim 9, Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson does not explicitly teach transmit the stripped data entry to multiple data stores.
Huang teaches transmit the stripped data entry to multiple data stores ([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 and Anderson system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate moving data to multiple storage media taught by Huang in the Mathias and Cheng and Anderson 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 and Anderson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mathias in view of Cheng and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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 and Anderson 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.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/C.D.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2153 09/17/2026
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights