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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 10/02/2024.
Claim 1 is currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/732,138 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1. A dynamic, computer enabled, transformative method comprising a plurality of steps, said steps comprising: a first step wherein raw data is detected, flattened, transformed, and mapped to a new set of headers and/or reordered as needed to facilitate a wide variety of survey export formats uploadable to products useful by clients using associated software; (PHILLABAUM138, claim 1; “A dynamic, computer enabled, transformative method comprising a plurality of steps, said steps comprising: a first step wherein raw data is detected, flattened, transformed, and mapped to a new set of headers and/or reordered as needed to facilitate a wide variety of survey export formats uploadable to products useful by clients using associated software”)
a second step wherein the file detection process automates a historic process of opening files and looking at certain attributes of the file format to confirm that the file is a certain survey from a publisher and handled appropriately after the metadata information is detected from the raw file; and (PHILLABAUM138, claim 1; “a second step wherein the file detection process automates a historic process of opening files and looking at certain attributes of the file format to confirm that the file is a certain survey from a publisher and handled appropriately after the metadata information is detected from the raw file; and”)
a third step wherein file formats are detected using a combination of file attributes and pattern recognition, for example, filenames, the number of sheets in a workbook, and the number of words in workbook are appropriate file attributes in a particular application. (PHILLABAUM138, claim 1; “a third step wherein file formats are detected using a combination of file attributes and pattern recognition, for example, filenames, the number of sheets in a workbook, and the number of words in workbook are appropriate file attributes in a particular application”)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claim 1 recites the abstract idea of processing data into delivery form, see specification page one under the title “Field”. This idea is described by the steps of:
a first step wherein raw data is detected, flattened, transformed, and mapped to a new set of headers and/or reordered as needed to facilitate a wide variety of survey export formats uploadable to products useful by clients;
a second step wherein the file detection process automates a historic process of opening files and looking at certain attributes of the file format to confirm that the file is a certain survey from a publisher and handled appropriately after the metadata information is detected from the raw file; and
a third step wherein file formats are detected using a combination of file attributes and pattern recognition, for example, filenames, the number of sheets in a workbook, and the number of words in workbook are appropriate file attributes in a particular application.
a) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recite a method of receiving/detecting data, flattened, transformed, and mapped and/or reordered data, confirming, using data to detect file format.
The Examiner additionally find the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity: (1) filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis). (2) considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
b) The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to process and manipulate collected data into delivery form, the court held that a claim that encompasses a human performing step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid (herein a computer and a software) recites a mental process see University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"). The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: computer, associated software,
The additional element is directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claim 1 when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jochum et al. (US 2022/0164363 A1, hereinafter “Jochum”) in view of Tong (US 2020/0134077 A1, hereinafter “Tong”).
Regarding claim 1. Jochum discloses a dynamic, computer enabled, transformative method comprising a plurality of steps, said steps comprising:
a first step wherein raw data is detected, (Jochum, [0078]; “In step 210, i.e. step a), one or more tabular data files are provided”, [0057]; “The one or more tabular data files 22 may contain any type of data”) transformed (Jochum, [0083]; “the schema-level matcher is configured to transform at least one table of the one or more submitted tabular data files into at least one transformed table to match a format”), and mapped to a new set of headers (Jochum, [0009]; “Schema elements of the one or more submitted tabular data files may be mapped to target tables of the user-defined template”) and/or reordered as needed (Jochum, [0023]; “) “The transformed tables may be ranked in order of similarity”) to facilitate a wide variety of survey export formats uploadable to products useful by clients (Jochum, [0056]; “The user interface 12 is configured to facilitate one or more users to submit one or more tabular data files 22, each tabular data file comprising at least one table 24”) using associated software (Jochum, [0078]; “the one or more tabular data files may include … various file formats such as, but not limited to, a CSV, format, and a spreadsheet file format from a Microsoft® Excel® file”);
a second step wherein the file detection process (Jochum, fig. 6A-B, [0079]; “Step b) comprises steps b1) to b5) for extracting data from one or more tabular data files”) automates a historic process of opening files and (Jochum, [0080]; “In step 220, i.e., step b1), a user-defined template is provided that comprises at least one target table. The user may select target tables from an existing tabular data file (i.e. historical data) in a database”)
looking at certain attributes of the file format to confirm that the file is a certain survey from a publisher (Jochum, [0081]; “In step 230, i.e. step b2) target schema-level information of the at least one target table is identified (i.e., the claimed looking). The schema-level information relates to properties inherent to the table itself which must be fulfilled by each candidate, such as name, description, data type, relationship types (part-of, is-a, etc.), constraints, and schema structures”) and handled appropriately after the metadata information is detected from the raw file (Jochum, [0010]; “a validator may be provided to validate table formats based on a validator template format to enable some consistency in data collection upfront. The validator template defines rules for markers, metadata and/or data”); and
a third step (Jochum, [0086]; “In step 260, i.e. step b5)”) wherein file formats are detected using a combination of file attributes and pattern recognition (Jochum, [0086]; “a constraint-based matcher may be used … such as numerical value ranges and averages or character pattern”), for example, filenames (Jochum, [0082]; “Name-based matching”), the number of sheets in a workbook, and the number of words in workbook are appropriate file attributes (Jochum, [0082]; “linguistic matcher may be used that uses names and text including words or sentences … description-based matcher … constraint-based matcher may be used that determines the similarity”) in a particular application (Jochum, [0082]; “In step 240, i.e. step b3), at least one semantically matched candidate table is selected from the one or more tabular data files based on the target schema-level information. One or multiple approaches may be used to identify one or more candidate tables”).
Jochum substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Jochum fails to explicitly disclose the “Flattened”. However, Tong teaches: Flattened (Tong, [0066]; “Each of the example documents 206 and 208 comprises the data elements of a rollup job. The aspect of flattening of data elements involves the creation of the aggregation trees and the grouping of data elements that are alike. The “flattening” of the raw data occurs through the creation of the leaf documents at the bottom-most level of the aggregation tree 202. The documents 206/208 can be combined into a single rollup index 201 for storage and future querying”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data management art before the effective filing date to modify Jochum to include a known technology of Flattening data, as taught by Tong, where this would be performed in order to provide efficient manner for creation of graphical or visual data depictions. See Tong [0002].
Conclusion
1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-9514205-B1 to Yazicioglu et al. teaches systems and methods are disclosed for importing data from electronic data files.
US-9411864-B2 to Glider et al. teaches transforming one of an entire set or a subset of the extracted data based on the request based on a template or a standardized form desired for comparisons.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627