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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations “generating, in response to the determining, a specific repository data object including a stub data object representing a prior version of the result from the storage separate from the repository” nor “resolving data associated with the specific repository data object including the stub data object and the first data object to obtain resolved data”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose “a prior version of the result from the storage separate from the repository” because the specification does not disclose a prior version of the result from the storage separate from the repository as recited in the claims. As seen at Applicant’s Fig. 7, the resolving step 702 is performed before the generating of the sub data object at step 708, therefore it is unclear how the resolving step can be performed in association with the sub data object, as required by the claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “resolving data associated with the specific repository data object including the stub data object and the first data object to obtain resolved data”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not disclose “a prior version of the result from the storage separate from the repository” because the specification does not disclose a prior version of the result from the storage separate from the repository as recited in the claims. As seen at Applicant’s Fig. 7, the resolving step 702 is performed before the generating of the sub data object at step 708, therefore it is unclear how the resolving step can be performed in association with the sub data object, as required by the claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levandoski et al. (US 2014/0164378 A1), hereinafter “Levandoski”, and in view of Dettinger et al. (US 2006/0161528 A1), hereinafter “Dettinger”.
As per claim 1, Levandoski teaches a method of persisting results of executing search queries across multiple data sources comprising:
“maintaining one or more search results in a storage” at [0062]-[0069] and Fig. 5;
(Levandoski teaches receiving data records from the sources 504, 506 and storing selected subset of the records in the source record repository 512)
“obtaining a first data object
(Levandoski teaches obtaining data records (i.e., “first data object”) from a plurality of data sources)
“a specific data source of the one or more data sources and the repository having different data models” at [0062]-[0067];
(Levandoski teaches different data sources can provide different data records about the same entity, and the master data 510 having different data models. Data records have to be transformed or merged before persisting into master data 510)
“computing a unique identifier based on one or more data object properties that uniquely identify the result” at [0070]-[0075];
(Levandoski teaches assigning a key (i.e., “unique identifier”) to the records. If a new record has been successfully matched with a previously existing version of the record in the master data 510, the key of the previously existing version of the record is assigned to the new record. If a new record has not been successfully matched with a previously existing version of the record in master data 510, component 518 assigns a new key to the new record. Levandoski therefore teaches that the key is based on the record properties)
“determining that a repository data object corresponding to the result does not exists based on the unique identifier” at [0070]-[0075] and Fig. 8;
(Levandoski teaches matching new records from the sources 544, 506 with data in master data 510, determining that a new record from source 504 has not been successfully matched with a previous existing version of the record in master data 510, component 518 assigns a new key to the new record)
“generating, in response to the determining, a specific repository data object including a stub data object representing a prior version of result from the storage separate from the repository” at [0074], [0085]-[0086] and Fig. 7;
(Levandoski teaches in response to the determining that a new record from source 504 has not been successfully matched with a previous existing version of the record in the master data 510, the component 518 assigns a new key to the new record, the application persists the record into a master data repository as a sub data object represent a version of the record from source 504)
“utilizing the unique identifier in the repository as a key or index value for the specific repository data object in the repository” at [0072]-[0075];
(Levandoski teaches assigning keys to the records that have been post-processed, storing the assigned keys with the corresponding records in source record repository 512. The key can be any alphanumeric or symbolic string. Assume that a new record form source 504 has not been successfully matched with a previous existing version of the record in master data 510, component 518 assigns a new key to the new record)
“resolving data associated with the specific repository data object including the stub data object and the first data object to obtain resolve data” at [0071];
(Leandoski teaches assigning different keys to the first and the second matched records causing the two records to be grouped into different groups. Such post-processing may be useful for match-affinity, whereby different data sources are aligned with different data in master data 510 so that match engine 508 matches the records from a source with only that data in mater data 510 with the source has a match-affinity)
“storing the resolved data for the specific repository data object in the repository” at [0077];
(Levandoski teaches component 520 receives post-processed, key-assigned records and persists or store the records in master data 510)
“wherein the method is performed by one or more processors” at [0044] and Fig.2.
Levandoski does not explicitly teach “obtaining a first data object as a result of executing a first search query against one or more data sources” nor “receiving a first request to store the first data object in a repository” as claimed. However, Dettinger teaches a method for obtaining query result including data object relating to patient information and storing the query results in response to “a user executing queries in a database system may wish to store the results of a query and later update a selected subset of rows contained in the results” at [0062]-[0070]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dettinger with Levandoski’s teaching by storing the query result in response to user’s wish/request in order to “allow the user to update the selected subset of rows without rerunning the original query by executing a modified query which retrieved the selected subset of rows without retrieving the remaining portion of the results”, as suggested by Dettinger at [0062].
As per claim 2, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: “identifying the specific data source as a data source that returned an initial result of executing the first search query based on a provenance identifier associated with the first data object” at [0065]-[0066].
As per claim 3, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: “the obtaining comprising transforming an initial result of executing the first query into a particular data model of the repository” at [0062]-[0067].
As per claim 4, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Dettinger also teaches: “sending the first data object to a client computer in response to the first search query, the first request being received from the client computer following the sending” at [0062]-[0070].
As per claim 5, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: “the determining comprising matching the first data object with a repository data object based on matching repository identifier, matching provenance identifier, matching unique data object properties, or other resolution rules” at [0069]-[0075].
As per claim 6, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Dettinger also teaches: “obtaining a second data object as a result of executing a second search query against at least one data source of the plurality of heterogeneous data sources; receiving a second request to store the second data object in the repository” at [0062]-[0070]. Levandoski also teaches “determining that the second data object resolved with the specific repository data object; deduplicating data associated with the second data object and the specific repository data object to obtain deduplicate data; storing deduplicated data for the specific repository object in the repository” at [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0075] and Fig. 8.
As per claim 7, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: “generating a second unique identifier for the deduplicated data; updating the specific repository object with the second unique identifier; transmitting the second unique identifier to a client computer from which the second request was received” at [0070]-[0075].
As per claim 8, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: “executing a second search query that takes the first data object as input against at least one data source related to the one or more data sources; obtaining a second data object as a result of executing the second search query; resolving the first data object with the second data object” at [0070]-[0075].
As per claim 9, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 8 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: the resolving comprising “determining that the first data object and the second data object have different unique identifiers; determining that the first data object and the second data object share one or more data object properties; grouping the first data object and the second data object” at [0054]-[0075] and Fig. 8.
As per claim 10, Levandoski and Dettinger teach the method of claim 8 discussed above. Levandoski also teaches: the resolving comprising “determining that the first data object and the second data object have different unique identifiers; determining that the first data object and the second data object share no data object properties; maintain the first data object and the second data object as separate data objects” at [0054]-[0075] and Fig. 8.
Claims 11-20 recite similar limitations as in claims 1-10 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
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 §§ 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US patent No. 9,348,880. Claims 1-10 of US patent 9,348,880 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 112(a) rejection have been considered but a moot because the agued limitation has been deleted.
Regarding the 103 rejection to claims 1-20, Applicant argued that Levandoski and Dettinger, as combined, does not teach “generating, in response to the determining [that a repository data object corresponding to the result does not exist based on the unique identifier], a specific repository data object including a stub data object representing a prior version of the result from the storage separating from the repository”. On the contrary, Levandoski teaches at [0074], [0085]-[0086] and Fig. 7 that
in response to the determining that a new record from source 504 has not been successfully matched with a previous existing version of the record in the master data 510, the component 518 assigns a new key to the new record, the application persists the record into a master data repository as a sub data object represent a version of the record from source 504. The newly generated record is therefore corresponds to the claimed “stub data object”, and because the new record is received from the data sources, it represents a prior version of the result from a data source, such as data source 504, 506 (i.e., “the storage separate from the repository”)
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
April 6, 2026
