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 .
Claims 58-66 & 129-139 are pending.
Claims 58, 61-62, 64-65, 129, 131-132, 134-135, & 137-138 have been amended.
Claims 1-57 & 67-128 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as memory, a processor, a computer readable medium, and other generic element of a computer system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because executing and facilitating are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards 35 U.S.C 102 rejections, with respect to claim(s) 58-66 & 129-139 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection. See Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 58-66 & 129-139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as memory, a processor, a computer readable medium, and other generic elements of a computer system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because executing and facilitating are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A system for migrating data from a legacy system to one or more target systems, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive packaged data from the legacy system to a first landing zone; copy and move the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone; and publish a status of the packaged data on a migration reconciliation dashboard as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones.
The limitation of receiving packaged data from the legacy system to a first landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to gather data from an initial designated location.
The limitation of copying and moving the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “copying and moving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to recreate data and transfer data from one location to another location.
The limitation of publishing a status of the packaged data on a migration reconciliation dashboard as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “publishing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to indicate in some visible way, data corresponding to the status of data that has been moved from one location to another.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 59-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data file loads for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data file loads; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to defects in the data that develop during data migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data movement controls as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the data movement controls include job status, row counts, or sum amounts; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard facilitates account traceability and balance reconciliation by defining and identifying key financial attributes as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data quality and profiling as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard allows a user to identify data gaps and subsequent remediation via display of such data gaps and subsequent remediation.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 1 because they further the limitations Claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 129 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A method comprising the steps of: receiving packaged data from a legacy system to a first landing zone; copying and moving the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone; and publishing a status of the packaged data as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests.
The limitation of receiving packaged data from the legacy system to a first landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to gather data from an initial designated location.
The limitation of copying and moving the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “copying and moving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to recreate data and transfer data from one location to another location.
The limitation of publishing a status of the packaged data on a migration reconciliation dashboard as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “publishing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to indicate in some visible way, data corresponding to the status of data that has been moved from one location to another.
The limitation of publishing information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “publishing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to indicate, in a visible manner, status data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 130-136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data file loads for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data file loads; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to defects in the data that develop during data migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data movement controls as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the data movement controls include job status, row counts, or sum amounts; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard facilitates account traceability and balance reconciliation by defining and identifying key financial attributes as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data quality and profiling as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard allows a user to identify data gaps and subsequent remediation via display of such data gaps and subsequent remediation.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 129 because they further the limitations Claim 129 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 137 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to: receive packaged data from a legacy system to a first landing zone; copy and move the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone; and publish a status of the packaged data as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests and information related to a status of data file loads for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data file loads.
The limitation of receiving packaged data from the legacy system to a first landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to gather data from an initial designated location.
The limitation of copying and moving the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “copying and moving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to recreate data and transfer data from one location to another location.
The limitation of publishing a status of the packaged data on a migration reconciliation dashboard as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “publishing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to indicate in some visible way, data corresponding to the status of data that has been moved from one location to another.
The limitation of publishing information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests and information related to a status of data file loads for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data file loads as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “publishing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to indicate, in a visible manner, status data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, copying, moving, and publishing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 138-139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard facilitates account traceability and balance reconciliation by defining and identifying key financial attributes as the data proceeds through migration; wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard allows a user to identify data gaps and subsequent remediation via display of such data gaps and subsequent remediation.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 137 because they further the limitations Claim 137 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform publishing, facilitating, and identifying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 58-66 & 129-139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bendapudi (US Patent No. 11,372,828).
In respect to Claim 58, Benda teaches:
a system for migrating data from a legacy system to one or more target systems, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive packaged data from the legacy system to a first landing zone; (Benda teaches [column 3, lines 16-39] reception of data from the source system to a staging table, wherein the source system is analogous to a legacy system and the staging table is analogous to the first landing zone.)
copy and move the packaged data from the first landing zone to a second landing zone; (Benda teaches [column 3, lines 16-39] moving the data to the target staging table, wherein the target staging table represents a second landing zone.)
and publish a status of the packaged data on a migration reconciliation dashboard as the packaged data is migrated from the legacy system to the first and second landing zones (Benda illustrates [FIG. 5, column 5, lines 19-41] a status dashboard of migrated data from the source system and the target system.)
As per Claim 59, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data requests for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data requests (Benda [FIG. 5, FIG. 6, column 11, lines 32-44])
As per Claim 60, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to a status of data file loads for migration allowing for identification of any issues in such data file loads (Benda [FIG. 5, FIG. 6, column 11, lines 32-44])
As per Claim 61, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to defects in the packaged data that develop during data migration (Benda [column 11, lines 45-52])
As per Claim 62, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data movement controls as the packaged data proceeds through migration (Benda [FIG. 5, FIG. 6, column 11, lines 32-44])
As per Claim 63, Benda teaches:
wherein the data movement controls include job status, row counts, or sum amounts (Benda [FIG. 5, FIG. 6, column 11, lines 32-44])
As per Claim 64, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard facilitates account traceability and balance reconciliation by defining and identifying key financial attributes as the packaged data proceeds through migration (Benda [column 4, lines 46-54])
As per Claim 65, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard publishes information related to data quality and profiling as the packaged data proceeds through migration (Benda [column 11, lines 45-52])
As per Claim 66, Benda teaches:
wherein the migration reconciliation dashboard allows a user to identify data gaps and subsequent remediation via display of such data gaps and subsequent remediation (Benda [column 11, lines 45-52])
Claims 129-136 are the method claims corresponding to system claims 58-66 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claims 137-139 are the media claims corresponding to system claims 58-60, 64, & 66 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights