DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed December 27, 2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered. A new rejection based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to double patenting rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Double patenting rejection do not hold until allowable subject matter is indicated and it is not a bona fide attempt to advance prosecution (see MPEP 804[R-5]). The amended claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s). Applicant’s is reminded that terminal disclaimer is sufficient to overcome the non-statutory obviousness double patenting rejection. As such, the double patenting rejection is hereby sustained.
Applicant’s arguments directed to 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The amended claims are not effective to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. The amended claims are not taking any new action. The amended last lines are merely attempts to generically say that there is an improvement for virtualized data assets by reusing existing ELT/ETL job definition. The efficient manner can be something is better than others. Also, there aren't any significant details as to how those are improved, and even so, it's just attempting to improve a mental process. The claim recited limitations creating table function is not telling how the table function is creating. Receiving a query from a user based on virtual view is just input step. Extract, transform, load, job definition can be reading a copy of data, which can be data gathering; Further, executing table function which triggers execution of said copy of ETL or ELT job definition is merely executing software execution in a generic computer; Also, executing software in a generic computer can be mental process. Reading and returning is output step. Furthermore, the claim also does not recited what problem is trying to solve. Based on the reasons as explained the 35 USC 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to 35 USC 103 (i.e., pages 14-16) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues that Xu in view of Friedlander do not teach or suggest the claim limitations “creating a table function for triggering execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition and returning data sets”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims changed the scope of the claimed invention. Xu in view of Friedlander in fact teaches the claim recited limitations. Xu teaches ETL describes functions to migrate data. For example, the migration/transformation can be from one database to another database or to a data mart or data warehouse (e.g., database has tables). Data transformation process (e.g., creating) include rules or lookup tables or combining the data with other data. Loading (e.g., creating) is the process of writing the data into the target ([0024], [0026]), in ETL system data store configured to import metadata (e.g., table, column with their names, attributes) ([0033]), ETL jobs with data stores configuration profiles include data store creation, and the association of data stores and specific data store configurations with ETL jobs ([0042]), ETL tools include create a copy of the flow object from the repository, updating the copy of the flow that is specific to the database, triggering additional data available for the datastore ([0082]), these features teaches the claim recited limitations of “creating a table function for triggering execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition and returning data sets”. In addition, Friedlander also teaches the argued claim recited limitations. Friedlander teaches databases are built, using temporary tables, associative tables on different tables on different dbms systems ([0016]), ETL database management for query, search, extract, analyze data ([0029]), created inherits data and stores them in database management systems. Storing data include copies of the data records ([0043]), accessing a new type of data source is done by acquiring or creating a wrapper for that source, data definition (DDL) statements allow sources to be dynamically added (e.g., trigger) to the federation without stopping ongoing queries or transactions ([0047]). These features also teaches the claim recited limitations of “creating a table function for triggering execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition and returning data sets”. Therefore, taken alone or combined references teach the amended claim recited limitations. Applicant’s fails to consider each of the paragraphs on Xu and Friedlander references. Any other arguments made by the Applicant’s are similar arguments and are moot for the reasons set forth above and in detailed office action. Applicant’s also fails to consider the references which are prior art of record (e.g., non-final rejection mailed on 09/24/25, pages 12-13). The Examiner encourages the full consideration of the references cited in the “Prior Art” on record. Consideration of the references which were cited as the prior art of record is recommended to properly amend the claims of the instant application to be patentably distinguished beyond the prior art of record. It is well settled rule that what a reference can be said to fairly suggest relates to the concepts fairly contained therein, and is not limited by the specific structure chosen to illustrate such concepts. See In re Bascom, 230 F.2d 612, 109 USPQ 98 (CCPA 1956).
Objection
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recited the limitations of "thereby creating virtualized data assets…more efficient manner". The term “thereby” can be providing any types of results, which may not provide the results all the time or which can be an intended use. The term “efficient manner” can be any types of process or performance. The limitations “thereby….more efficient manner” does not have a patentable weight and does not distinguish from the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g. claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claim 1, computer program product of claim 8 and system of claim 15 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, the limitations are directed to additional elements include computer, computer readable storage medium, system, memory and processor.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 are creating a copy of an extract, transform, load (ETL) or an extract, load, transform (ELT) job definition; creating a table function for triggering execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition and returning data sets; receiving a query from a user based on a virtual view, wherein said query comprises said ETL or ELT job definition; executing said table function which triggers execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition in response to receiving said query etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, the claims are directed to merely creating a copy, creating a table function, performing activities on the tables, which are routine and conventional. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or can consider as a data gathering performance. Further, the claim recited executing table function and triggers execution of said copy of said ETL in response to a query, can be interpret as automatic execution any procedural code while performing in any event on database or views. The claims do not add any meaningful limitation. Thus, the limitations are merely routine and conventional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites computer, computer readable storage medium, system, memory and processor. The computer, computer readable storage medium, system, memory and processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recited additional limitations, such that producing said data sets in response to execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition; and reading and returning said data sets in said virtual view. Thereby creating virtualized data assets by reusing existing ETL/ELT job definitions in a more efficient manner. The term “thereby” can be providing any types of results, which may not provide the results all the time or which can be an intended use. The term “efficient manner” can be any types of process or performance. These limitations are a context which encompasses user issued a command or input and receiving an output, providing any types of results, which may not provide the results all the time or which can be an intended use, any types of process or performance. The limitations reusing existing ETL/ELT job definition can be rerun the query or program or history for a program execution. Using generic computing components (e.g., computer, computer readable storage medium, system, memory and processor) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data (e.g., Symantec...;TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...; Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., computer, computer readable storage medium, system, memory and processor) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recited the limitations of creating a queue is dataset, the limitations can interpret as user action one after another and doing the same several times, or ordering/listing the data, which are routine and conventional. Dependent claim 3 recited the limitations of modifying said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition. These limitations are merely modifying, changing, executing and receiving results for the copy of the data, which can be mentally performed. Dependent claim 4 recited the limitations of creating said table function for reading said data sets from executing said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition. These limitations can interpret as previously received data and further working on those data. These limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claim 5 recited the limitations of a single view of virtualized data. The limitations merely describing storing data or just storage. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 6 recited the limitations of receiving a request from said user to create said virtual view. The limitations are describing any input step. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 7 recited the limitations of creating said virtual view for said user. The limitations are describing merely storing data by a user, which are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 9-14 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected. Therefore, the dependent claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as indicated.
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Patent # US 12,189,620 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 12,189,620 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/954760 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e. claims 1-20) contains same or similar limitations as US 12,189,6205 B2 (i.e. claims 1-20). Claims of the instant application 18/6954760, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 (from Patent no. US 12,189,620 B2) to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2007/0136324 A1), hereinafter Xu in view of Friedlander et al. (US 2007/0276851 A1), hereinafter Friedlander.
As for claim 1, Xu teaches a computer-implemented method for creating virtualized data assets, the method comprising: creating a copy of an extract, transform, load (ETL) or an extract, load, transform (ELT) job definition (see [0002], e.g., migrating data from a source (e.g., a database) to a target (e.g., another database, a data store, a data mart or a data warehouse) is sometimes referred to as Extract, Transform and Load, or the acronym ETL, [0055], e.g., database versions copy properties of the objects from old configuration to the new configuration).;
creating a table function for triggering execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition and returning data sets (see [0024], e.g., ETL or extract, transform and load. ETL describes functions to migrate data, [0026], e.g., transformation of data from a source to a target. A data flow may be called from inside a workflow or job, [0033], [0042], [0082]; Also see response to arguments section above);
receiving a query from a user based on a virtual…, wherein said query comprises said ETL or ELT job definition (see [0042], e.g., extract, transform, and load data from databases and applications into a data warehouse used for analytical and on-demand queries, [0042], a graphical user interface (GUI) tool enables a user to create and edit data stores, create ETL jobs, and associate ETL jobs with data stores and specific data store configuration profiles);
executing said table function which triggers execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition in response to receiving said query; producing said data sets in response to execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition; and reading and returning said data sets in said virtual……thereby creating virtualized data assets by reusing existing ETL/ELT job definitions in a more efficient manner (see [0003], e.g., ETL jobs are special sets of instructions, or workflows, which define a unit of work that can be independently scheduled for execution, [0024], ETL describes software tools that combine these functions to migrate data,. Extracting refers to the process of reading the data from a source (e.g., a database). Transforming is the process of converting the extracted data from its previous form into the form it needs to be in and cleansing it, [0003], defining workflows is an efficient way to maintain and reuse data extraction, transformation, and loading [0028], e.g., a workflow is a reusable object defining job execution. In some embodiments workflows are reused by dragging existing workflows from an object library);
Xu teaches the claimed invention including the limitation of virtual ([0002]) but does not explicitly teach the limitations of a virtual view or said virtual view. However, in the same field of endeavor, Friedlander teaches the limitations of a virtual view or said virtual view (see[0040], e.g., various sources of data processed through ETL with yield a view; Also see response to arguments section above).
Xu and Friedlander both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as extract, transform and load (ETL) application to move data from one or more resources to and reformat the data to another resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Friedlander’s teaching to Clark’s system to obtain an optimal solutions for multi-dimensional physical and people challenges. Hence, a large volume of data released to satisfy academic, institutional, or regulatory requirements. Optimizing multi-dimensional physical and people challenges enabling users to store and retrieve data in multiple database with a single query, even if the constituent databases are heterogeneous (see Friedlander, [0008]).
As for claim 8,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 8 is a computer readable storage medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Friedlander’s teaching to Clark’s system to obtain an optimal solutions for multi-dimensional physical and people challenges. Hence, a large volume of data released to satisfy academic, institutional, or regulatory requirements. Optimizing multi-dimensional physical and people challenges enabling users to store and retrieve data in multiple database with a single query, even if the constituent databases are heterogeneous (see Friedlander, [0008]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 15 is a system claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Friedlander’s teaching to Clark’s system to obtain an optimal solutions for multi-dimensional physical and people challenges. Hence, a large volume of data released to satisfy academic, institutional, or regulatory requirements. Optimizing multi-dimensional physical and people challenges enabling users to store and retrieve data in multiple database with a single query, even if the constituent databases are heterogeneous (see Friedlander, [0008]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
further comprising: creating a queue to store results from execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition (see Xu, [0077], [0081]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
further comprising: modifying said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition to store results of said execution of said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition in said queue (see Xu, [0077], [0082]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
further comprising: creating said table function for reading said data sets from executing said copy of said ETL or ELT job definition (see Xu, [0088]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
wherein said virtual view comprises a single view of virtualized data obtained from a plurality of data sources, wherein said plurality of data sources comprises data warehouses, data marts and data lakes (see Xu, [0002]; Also see, Friedlander, [0040]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
further comprising: receiving a request from said user to create said virtual view for said ETL or ELT job definition (see Xu, [0088], Also see, Friedlander, [0040]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Xu and Friedlander teaches:
further comprising: creating said virtual view for said user (see Xu, [0005], Also see, Friedlander, [0040]).
Claims 9-14 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
12. US 9,852,196 B2 teaches ETL job, job scheduler, execution. Job scheduler schedules the job for processing by placing the job file into an input queue. Job scheduler manages the priority of each job in the input queue, the resources for the job, and the associated input data and output results for each job. Both job reader and job scheduler may respectively be fully integrated with, partially integrated with, or be completely separate from mainframe OS (Fig. 1).
US 9,305,067 B2 teaches ETL job, a single input action retrieves the contents of a single table, or view on a single table, in a database, (ii) contains no actions that operate on the entirety of data for a job, (iii) contains no actions that rely on ordering of data, and (iv) at least one output stage operates on a database (column 2, lines 1-16).
EP 2079020 A1 teaches ETL jobs ETL jobs for populating databases, automate and control the ETL process, allow developers to easily view and update the ETL process (page 1).
Also see, US 20140344211, US 7523118, US 20200073987, US 20070038609, US 10331692, US 10318544, US 7761408, US 20190258645, US 9904684, US 8577833, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
13. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
14. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
03/08/26