DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to communication filed December 26, 2024. Claims 21-44 are canceled by preliminary amendment. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and being examined on the merits.
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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/259,455 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 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 15 and 16 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. Claim 15 recites “The method of claim of 11” in the preamble of the claim. However, claim 11 is a system claim and not a method claim. Therefore, it is unclear as to what method claim 15 refers. Similarly, claims 16 recites “The method of claim 15” in the preamble of the claim. However, as noted above, claim 15 depends on claim 11, which is a system claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambe et al. ( US 2024/0281451 A1) (‘Dambe’) in view of Kapoor et al. (US 9,619,535 B1) (‘Kapoor’).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Dambe teaches a method and system comprising:
first memory storing instructions (paragraphs 76, 86, and 88) ;
a processor (paragraphs 76 and 86-87) configured to execute the instructions to perform:
receiving, by at least one processor of a server, source data from a data source for staging in a staging database (i.e. ingestion database 302), the source data being in a source data format and having a data subject (paragraphs 30 and 49-50);
storing the source data in the staging database (i.e. ingestion database 302) in the source data format (paragraphs 30 and 49-50);
transmitting the source data from the staging database (i.e. ingestion database 302) to a working database (i.e. staging database 304) (paragraphs 31 and 51);
segmenting the source data into one or more datasets within the working database (i.e. staging database 304) based on one or more data patterns (Fig.3 paragraph 50-52);
transmitting each dataset of the one or more datasets to an associated consumption database within a sub-layer (i.e. standardized-schema database having data domains and associated domain workspaces), the sub-layer being associated with the data subject (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 32, 51-54); and
receiving queries (paragraph 39).
Dambe does not explicitly teach: segmenting source data based on data patterns received from a user device associated with a user; receiving a request to query the associated consumption database; executing the query on the associated consumption database to receive a query result including one or more query result data elements from a dataset of the one or more datasets; and returning the query result.
Kapoor teaches segmenting source data into one or more datasets based on data patterns received from a user device associated with a user (col. 5 lines 50-57; col. 7 lines 34-54; col. 8 lines 5-18);
receiving a request to query the associated consumption database (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 10 lines 19-30);
executing the query on the associated consumption database to receive a query result including one or more query result data elements from a dataset of the one or more datasets (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30); and
returning the query result (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dambe to segment and query data based on data patterns received from a user as taught by Kapoor to enable a user-driven, customized warehousing approach that gathers patterns and allows for the automated identification of more focused data marts for particular situations and provides for automated data warehouse/data mart creation and customization based on usage patterns (Kapoor, abstract). Dambe already teaches subject/domain based sub-layers and thus the modification would entail subject/domain based sub-layers further customized by users/enterprises.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the source data is received from an external source (Dambe, paragraph 30).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the source data is received from an enterprise source (Dambe, paragraphs 30 and 38; Kapoor, col. 3 lines 26-46).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the sub-layer returns the query result (Kapoor, col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30) according to a user preference received from a second user device associated with a second user (Kapoor, col. 8 lines 5-18; col. 9 lines 47-57).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches, wherein the second user is the same as the user (Kapoor, col. 8 lines 5-18; col. 9 lines 47-57).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein access to the sub-layer is restricted to select users (Dambe, paragraphs 54 and 59).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the working database has restricted access (Access privileges are granted based on roles of user device. In an alternative interpretation, standardized-schema database may be the working database and access may be restricted for the standardized-schema database.) (Dambe, paragraphs 40, 54, 59 and 67; Kapoor, col. 4 lines 41-54).
With respect to claims 8 and 20, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the staging database identifies the data source (Dambe, Fig. 3, paragraphs 30 and 49-50).
With respect to claims 9 and 12, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the working database is within the sub-layer (Staging database shows various data domains, such that each domain may be a sub-layer. In an alternative interpretation, standardized-schema database may be the working database while domain workspaces with multiple databases may be consumption database(s). Standardized-schema database has multiple domains or sub-layers.)(Fig. 3, paragraph 51-52).
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the source data is stored outside of the sub-layer (Dambe, Fig. 3, paragraphs 49-50).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights