DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on August 11, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the IDSs filed on August 26, 2026 have been considered and entered into record. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections - 35 USC § 101with respect to 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Consequently, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, as address in details below.
Applicant argues that “independent claim 1 does not recite the abstract idea because it recites a system in which at least one processor operates with a database to: (1) process dimensional and fact attributes from a plurality of data points; (2) configure the fact attributes in a first table and the dimensional attributes in a second table; (3) generate a global identifier (GID); (4) compare a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID; (5) populate the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attributes based on the comparison; (6) provide the first table with key columns joining it to the second table; and (7) provide multiple frames of reference - including people, places, objects, and events - by linking the fact attributes back to the data and providing access to the dimensional attribute providing descriptors to the accessed fact attribute. These are not steps that a person can perform in the mind. The generation of a GID, the hash-based comparison of a reformat table and a key table using that GID, and the selective population of organized first and second table structures are discrete, technical machine operations carried out by the processor and the database, depending on the specific hardware architecture and data processing logic implemented in the system, not on any cognitive or pencil-and-paper process.” (response 8/11/2026, pages 2-7). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “(1) process dimensional and fact attributes from a plurality of data points; (2) configure the fact attributes in a first table and the dimensional attributes in a second table; (3) generate a global identifier (GID); (4) compare a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID; (5) populate the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attributes based on the comparison; (6) provide the first table with key columns joining it to the second table; and (7) provide multiple frames of reference - including people, places, objects, and events - by linking the fact attributes back to the data and providing access to the dimensional attribute providing descriptors to the accessed fact attribute.” These operations are performed using a generic computer environment, such as a computer system and database, to carry out the abstract idea of processing and organizing data. The recitation of a processor and a database to perform these operations does not, by itself, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not recite a particular improvement in computer functionality or another technology, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d), nor does it recite unconventional steps that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). When considered as a whole, the claim recites the use of routine and conventional computer components to perform the identified data processing and data organization operations. These operations fall withing the types of routine and conventional activities discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, Independent claims 1, 12 and 18 recite “comparing a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID. It is unclear what is hashed, what is compared, and how the hash is used in the comparison. The claims further recite “populating the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attributes based on the comparison.” However, it is unclear what comparison result controls the population of the two tables.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “process data from at least one of a plurality of data sources by processing dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, linking the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points from the plurality of data sources and providing multiple frames of reference when accessing a fact table for one of the multiple frames of reference.., and providing access to dimensional tables…, wherein the fact attributes are configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes are configured in a second table”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually by one skill in the art. These processing, linking and providing access are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Such mental processing, linking and providing access to data dimensional table fall within “Mental Process” and “Certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-11 a system or a machine, claims 12-17 a method or a process and claims 18-20 a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites a system for processing and organizing data by associating fact attributes with dimensional attributes, providing access to the data through multiple frames of reference, generating a global identifier (GID), comparing a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID, and populating the first and second tables based on the comparison. The recited processing of information, including the association and organization of data according to attributes and the provision of access to the organized information, is directed to organizing and managing information. Such information organization falls within the applicable abstract idea grouping. The claim resembles an abstract data modeling or relational analysis rather than a technological improvement to computer functionality itself. Further, the recited the “multiple frames of reference” concept appears conceptual rather than technical because it describes ways of viewing or organizing information (e.g. people, places, objects, and events). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a processor, a database, multiple tables, a GID, and a hash-based comparison. These elements as considered individually and in combination, do not establish eligibility because they appear to be generic computer components performing conventional data processing functions. The processor and database appear to provide a computer environment for performing the information processing operations. Although these elements provide a computer-based environment for performing the recited information processing operations, the claim does not establish that the recited operations improve the functioning of the computer or database or otherwise integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The hash-based comparison is recited functionally, without explaining a particular technical improvement resulting from the use of the hash. The tables and key columns appear to organize and associate information, but the claim does not expressly establish how their configuration improves computer or database operation. The claim does not recite a specific database architecture, a specialized indexing mechanism, a particular data structure that improves computer performance, a new storage technique, reduced latency, improved memory usage, or another concrete technological improvement. Instead, the processor merely performs the abstract information processing operations. The claimed “linking,” “providing access,” and “framework of data linked to a given fact” are functional results without explaining how the linking is technically achieved, how the framework is generated, or how computer technology itself is improved. Thus, the claim appears to merely use generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea, rather than integrating the judicial exception into a practical technological application. Therefore, the claim does not provide meaningful integration into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the abstract idea, including a “processor,” a “database,” and generic data processing and linking operations. However, these elements appear to be routine and conventional. The processor and database are recited as computer components for implementing the information processing operations. The first and second tables, keys columns, GID generation, hash-based comparison, and table-population operations are recited in terms of organizing, associating, comparing, and storing information. The claim does not recite unconventional computer architecture, specific technical algorithms, specialized hardware, non-conventional database operations, or implementation details sufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. Instead, the claim merely recites desired functional outcomes, such as linking facts, providing frames of reference, providing contextual access to data, organizing, associating, comparing, and populating data tables. Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis.
Dependent claim 2 recites “determining at least one metric for at least one of the fact attributes” abstract idea under step 2A(i) and “storing the at least one metric with the at least one of the fact attributes in the fact table” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “processing of the dimensional attributes..” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “dimensional attributes are processed with Astage processing.” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “a plurality of pointers are created from the processing fact attributes, the plurality of pointers linking ones of the fact attributes back to the provided data.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein people include parties and actors, wherein objects include insured properties, automobiles and machinery, and wherein the first table and the second table are configured to enable bi-directional relationships between the people, objects, and events through global identifier (GID) columns, wherein events include milestones which happen at points in time, and wherein places include addresses with geographic information.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the geographic information is at various levels of view.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the data includes at least two of people, places, objects, and events which provide analytical/business value.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the at least one of a plurality of data sources includes upstream data sources within a company, the upstream source data being extracted in native format into a staging database using a first extract transform and load process, processed using a second extract transform and load process to collect respective fact and dimensional attributes, and loaded into the analytical data mart using a third extract transform and load process that generates a global identifier (GID), compares a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID, and populates the first table and the second table based on the comparison” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the fact attribute is a payment amount and the dimensional attribute is a payment type.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the fact attributes and dimensional attributes are processed and linked using at least one extract transform and load process.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 12-20 are similar to claims 1-11 and therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12182170 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed toward the same subject matter.
All limitations and elements in claim 1 of the instant application are found in claim 1 of Beznos except “the fact attributes being configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes being configured in a second table, the processing of dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points” have been omitted. Given the fact that the ‘700 invention has broader applications where “the fact attributes being configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes being configured in a second table” must inherently there in datamart to be processed. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the similar limitations as showed in the Claims Comparison Table below as the claims of the cited patent teach every claims of the instant application, as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. The motivation would have to expand the overall use of the claimed invention at no significant cost.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-20 are anticipated by patent claims 1-20.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims 2-20 of the above patent recites every element of claims 2-20 of the instant application.
Claims Comparison Table:
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7-20 7-20
Instant application # 18/988,700
Patent # 12,182,170
Claim 1. A system comprising:
at least one processor communicatively coupled to a database, the processor operating with the database to:
process data including dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes, the
processing configured to link the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points and configured to provide multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, when accessing the fact attributes for one of the multiple frames of reference by providing access to the dimensional attribute providing descriptors to the accessed fact attribute and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference, where the fact attributes are configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes are configure in a second table, the processing comprising: generating a global identifier (GID); comparing a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID; and populating the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attribute based on the comparison, the first table comprising key column joining the first table to the second table.
2. The system of claim 1 further comprising determining at least one metric for at least one of the fact attributes and storing the at least one metric with the at least one of the fact attributes.
3. The system of claim 1 wherein the processing of the dimensional attributes includes generating an anchor identification for providing a key to link the dimensional attribute to a described related fact.
4. The system of claim 3 wherein the dimensional attributes are processed with Astage processing.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein a plurality of pointers are created from the processing fact attributes, the plurality of pointers linking ones of the fact attributes back to the provided data.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein people include parties and actors, wherein objects include insured properties, automobiles and machinery, wherein events include milestones which happen at points in time, and wherein places include addresses with geographic information.
7. The system of claim 6 wherein the geographic information is at various levels of view.
8. The system of claim 1 wherein the data includes at least two of people, places, objects, and events which provide analytical/business value.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein the at least one of a plurality of data sources includes upstream data sources within a company.
10. The system of claim 1 wherein the fact attribute is a payment amount and the dimensional attribute is a payment type.
11. The system of claim 1 wherein the fact attributes and dimensional attributes are processed and linked using at least one extract transform and load process.
12. A method for enabling analysis of integrated data from multiple perspectives, the method comprising:
processing data including dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes;
linking the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points; and providing multiple frames of reference when accessing the fact attributes for one of the multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, by providing access to the dimensional attributes providing descriptors to the accessed fact attribute and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference, where the fact attributes are configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes are configure in a second table, the processing comprising: generating a global identifier (GID); comparing a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID; and populating the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attribute based on the comparison, the first table comprising key column joining the first table to the second table.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein the processing of dimensional attributes includes reformatting the dimensional attribute to a common format, comparing the reformatted dimensional attribute and creating an anchor identification, performing Astage processing and combining alike entities.
14. The method of claim 12 wherein the processing of fact attributes includes reformatting the fact attribute, picking an identification population and generating an identifier, performing Astage processing and combining alike entities.
15. The method of claim 12 wherein the data includes at least two of people, places, objects, and events which provide analytical/business value.
16. The method of claim 12 wherein the fact attribute is a payment amount and the dimensional attribute is a payment type.
17. The method of claim 12 wherein the fact attributes and dimensional attributes are processed and linked using at least one extract transform and load process including Astage processing and generating anchor identification.
18. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for enabling analysis of integrated data from multiple perspectives, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
processing data including dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes;
linking the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points; and
providing multiple frames of reference when accessing the fact attributes for one of the multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, by providing access to the dimensional attributes providing descriptors to the accessed fact attribute and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference, where the fact attributes are configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes are configure in a second table, the processing comprising: generating a global identifier (GID); comparing a reformat table and a key table using a hash based on the GID; and populating the first table with fact attributes and the second table with dimensional attribute based on the comparison, the first table comprising key column joining the first table to the second table.
19. The computer readable medium of claim 18 wherein the processing of the dimensional attributes includes generating an anchor identification for providing a key to link the dimensional attribute to a described related fact.
20. The computer readable medium of claim 18 wherein a plurality of pointers are created from the processing fact attributes, the plurality of pointers linking ones of the fact attributes back to the provided data.
Claim 1. A system enabling streamlined business intelligence, reporting and ad hoc analysis, the system comprising:
at least one processor communicatively coupled to a database, the processor operating with the database to:
process data from at least one of a plurality of data sources by processing dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes, the fact attributes being configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes being configured in a second table, the processing of dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points being configured to link the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points from the plurality of data sources, and the processing of dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points being configured to provide multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, when accessing the first table for one of the multiple frames of reference by providing access to the second table providing descriptors to the accessed first table and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference.
2. The system of claim 1 further comprising determining at least one metric for at least one of the fact attributes and storing the at least one metric with the at least one of the fact attributes in the fact table.
3. The system of claim 1 wherein the processing of the dimensional attributes includes generating an anchor identification for providing a key to link the dimensional attribute to a described related fact.
4. The system of claim 3 wherein the dimensional attributes are processed with Astage processing.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein a plurality of pointers are created from the processing fact attributes, the plurality of pointers linking ones of the fact attributes back to the provided data.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein people include parties and actors, wherein objects include insured properties, automobiles and machinery, wherein events include milestones which happen at points in time, and wherein places include addresses with geographic information.
7. The system of claim 6 wherein the geographic information is at various levels of view.
8. The system of claim 1 wherein the data includes at least two of people, places, objects, and events which provide analytical/business value.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein the at least one of a plurality of data sources includes upstream data sources within a company.
10. The system of claim 1 wherein the fact attribute is a payment amount and the dimensional attribute is a payment type.
11. The system of claim 1 wherein the fact attributes and dimensional attributes are processed and linked using at least one extract transform and load process.
12. A method for enabling analysis of integrated data from multiple perspectives, the method comprising:
processing data from at least one of a plurality of data sources by processing dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes, the fact attributes being configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes being configured in a second table;
linking the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points from the plurality of data sources; and providing multiple frames of reference when accessing the first table for one of the multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, by providing access to the second table providing descriptors to the accessed first table and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein the processing of dimensional attributes includes reformatting the dimensional attribute to a common format, comparing the reformatted dimensional attribute and creating an anchor identification, performing Astage processing and combining alike entities.
14. The method of claim 12 wherein the processing of fact attributes includes reformatting the fact attribute, picking an identification population and generating an identifier, performing Astage processing and combining alike entities.
15. The method of claim 12 wherein the data includes at least two of people, places, objects, and events which provide analytical/business value.
16. The method of claim 12 wherein the fact attribute is a payment amount and the dimensional attribute is a payment type.
17. The method of claim 12 wherein the fact attributes and dimensional attributes are processed and linked using at least one extract transform and load process including Astage processing and generating anchor identification.
18. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for enabling analysis of integrated data from multiple perspectives, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
process data from at least one of a plurality of data sources by processing dimensional and fact attributes from each of a plurality of data points, wherein the fact attributes are measurable attributes of the data points and the dimensional attributes are descriptors of the fact attributes with the fact attributes being associated with the dimensional attributes, the fact attributes being configured in a first table and the dimensional attributes being configured in a second table;
link the fact attributes back to the data including the plurality of data points from the plurality of data sources; and
provide multiple frames of reference when accessing the first table for one of the multiple frames of reference including at least two of people, places, objects, and events, by providing access to the second table providing descriptors to the accessed first table and access linked provided data including the plurality of data points to provide a framework of data linked to a given fact from at least one frame of reference.
19. The computer readable medium of claim 18 wherein the processing of the dimensional attributes includes generating an anchor identification for providing a key to link the dimensional attribute to a described related fact.
20. The computer readable medium of claim 18 wherein a plurality of pointers are created from the processing fact attributes, the plurality of pointers linking ones of the fact attributes back to the provided data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bagheri et al. (US 20170330221 A1) disclose systems and methods for integration of universal marketing activities.
Cherwonka et al. (US 20160378843 A1) disclose systems and methods for intelligent data preparation and visualization.
Zenger (US 8990212 B1) discloses systems and methods of mapping multidimensional data and executing queries.
Lanphear et al. (US 20140101093 A1) disclose distributed, real-time online analytical processing (OLAP).
Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 20110295794 A1) disclose system and method for supporting data warehouse metadata extension using an extender.
Wyatt et al. (US 20100076977 A1) disclose system and method for analyzing and reporting extensible data from multiple sources in multiple formats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights