DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted March 6, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a 35 USC 102 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that “By using the schema identifier to route data to a destination, the method of the present claims enables fast transfer of data to the components that need it, thereby improving an existing technology. Accordingly, even if the present claims recited an abstract idea, which the applicant explicitly denies, the present claims integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Claims presently describe abstract concepts of identifying where to send data and validating data. Further additional concept of retrieving data is considered extra-solution activity; And sending data is a generic function of a computer. Furthermore, sending data based on a particular parameter is a well-understood routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d), where an example of such activity is at least “transmitting data over a network.”
As such, the purported improvements just restate the abstract ideas discussed above, and the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite abstract subject matter directed towards identifying where to send data. Specifically, the claims recite:
receiving data and a schema identifier associated with the data – Receiving data is considered extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g).
confirming that the schema identifier is valid – Checking whether one an identifier matches particular data, such as a schema, is something that a person is able to do in their mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
routing the data at the data pipeline to a destination, wherein the destination is based on the schema identifier –Sending data is a generic function of a computer. Furthermore, sending data based on a particular parameter is a well-understood routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d), where an example of such activity is at least “transmitting data over a network.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such a processor, memory, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The rest of the Dependent Claims, 2-9 and 11-18 further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240).
Claims 1, 10 and 19: Sabharwal discloses a method, a system and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
receiving data and a schema identifier associated with the data [0060]. [See at least receiving a record and a schema identifier.]
confirming that the schema identifier is valid [0060]. [Confirming the schema is defined in at least dependent claim 8. In light of that definition, see at least confirming that a schema exists based on the identifier.]
Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose routing the data at the data pipeline to a destination, wherein the destination is based on the schema identifier.
However, Sabharwal [0060-0061] discloses using the schema (i.e. routing) for streaming and Horvitz (Col 20 ln 43-67) discloses sending data based at least on a schema identifier.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Horvitz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify where to send data.
Claims 8 and 17: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, and Sabharwal further discloses wherein the confirming the schema identifier is valid comprises checking that schema of the data matches schema of the schema identifier [0060]. [See at least confirming that a schema exists based on the identifier.]
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240) and further in view of Varga et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0300064).
Claims 2 and 11: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing comprises routing the data to a secondary processing function within the data pipeline.
However, Varga [0052] discloses duplicating data and processing them using a slow path. The secondary function is interpreted as using a different routing path.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Varga. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process duplicate data.
Claims 3 and 12: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing comprises: cloning the data to create cloned data; sending the data to the destination; and sending the cloned data to a processing function, wherein the processing function comprises a slower pathway than the sending the data to the destination.
However, Varga [0052] discloses duplicating data and processing them using a slow path.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Varga. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process duplicate data.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240) and further in view of Kuznetsov et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0359054).
Claims 4 and 13: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose receiving a new schema identifier; and determining a data path for data associated with the new schema identifier.
However, Sabharwal [0060] discloses receiving schema identifiers and Kuznetsov [0060] further discloses receiving a new identifier of an object and identifying its path.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Kuznetsov. One would have been motivated to do so in order to route objects to appropriate locations.
Claims 5 and 14: Sabharwal as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 4 and 13 above and Kuznetsov, for the same reasons as above, further discloses creating a new processing function for data associated with the new schema identifier [0060]. [See at least a function based on a new identifier. Such functionality may be a new process because the instant specification does not explicitly define what a “new processing function” entails.]
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240) and further in view of Talagala et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0195480).
Claims 6 and 15: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a parallel data pipeline is created when a volume of data reaches a threshold.
However, Sabharwal [0056] discloses use of multiple pipelines and Talagala [0271] further discloses increasing (i.e. creating) use of parallel processing (i.e. pipelines) when more data needs to be processed.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Talagala. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process data more efficiently.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240) further in view of Varga et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0300064) and further in view of Talagala et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0195480).
Claims 7 and 16: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 2 and 11 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the secondary processing function is duplicated in the data pipeline when a volume of data reaches a threshold.
However, Sabharwal [0056] discloses use of multiple pipelines and Talagala [0271] further discloses increasing (i.e. duplicating) use of parallel processing (i.e. pipelines) when more data needs to be processed.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Talagala. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process data more efficiently.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabharwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114483) in view of Horvitz (US Patent 7,870,240) and further in view of Natarajan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0062917).
Claims 9 and 18: Sabharwal discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 above, but Sabharwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing the data comprises routing the data to a bus which comprises a real time data cache.
However, Natarajan [0029, 0064] discloses sending data to a cache that contains real-time information via a bus.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sabharwal with Natarajan. One would have been motivated to do so to at least “to implement a faster access memory region.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163