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 .
The Amendment filed on 01/29/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 19/005,836 of which claims 1-20 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 01/29/26, with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to 101 rejections directed to non-statutory subject matter of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to 101 rejections directed to an abstract idea of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-10 directed to non-statutory subject matter of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1-20, Applicant argues “Step 2A analysis - the claim is not directed to an abstract idea…Step 2A, Prong Two analysis - the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application… features of claim 1 represent a technical improvement and as such, these features cannot represent merely "apply it" within the context of Step 2A. Indeed, these features integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 11 recite parsing the input data using an input parser based on the input data format. The limitations of parsing…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system…,” “of “parsing…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually parsing input data based on input data format. 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. Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, instantiating…, storing…. The “instantiating” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “storing ” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, please see MPEP 2106.05g). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Instantiating” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “storing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner points that improvement cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1-20, Applicant argues “Bhatt fails to disclose an execution context configured to change processing logic and data requirements of functions at runtime. In Bhatt, the processing logic is fixed prior to runtime during the translation phase, and the execution context described serves merely as a passive storage container for results. Nowhere does Bhatt describe a workflow where the execution context, at runtime, passes a function a reference to an execution context object that the function can use to retrieve the data items needed by the function”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to Roth of paragraph [0173] to teach the claimed limitations on the features of zone library modifying framework’s asynchronous at APIs runtime in which “Zone library that provides a way to represent the dynamic extent of asynchronous calls in JS framework of some embodiments. The zone library dynamically modifies framework's asynchronous APIs at runtime. Similar to how a scope of a function defines where it may be used, the extent of a call represents the lifetime that it is active. The Zone library of some embodiments also provides execution context that can
persist across the lifecycle of one or more asynchronous calls”. Therefore, the combination of Bhatt and Roth discloses the claimed limitations. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 without significantly more. The claims 1 and 11 recite parsing the input data using an input parser based on the input data format.
The limitations of parsing…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system…,” “of “parsing…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually parsing input data based on input data format. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, instantiating…, storing…. The “instantiating” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “storing ” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, please see MPEP 2106.05g). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Instantiating” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “storing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 2 and 12 recite wherein an input parser factory determines the input parser format based on the input data format. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determine) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 3 and 13 recite wherein the input data is received from the client via a listener configured to instantiate the input parser factory. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., instantiate) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 4 and 14 recite instantiating an output parser to format output data in the input data format. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., format) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 5 and 15 recite wherein an output parser factory determines the output parser format based on the input data format. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determines) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 6 and 16 recite transmitting the output data in the input data format to a client. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 7 and 17 recite wherein a responder transmits output data in the input data format to a client using the same manner of transmission. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., transmits) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 8 and 18 recite wherein the execution context addresses data using an execution context property path (XPP). The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the XPP includes a modifier to append additional information to an XPP request. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 10 and 20 recite executing a rule against one or more stored property collections to generate output data. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generate) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0101169; hereinafter “Bhatt”) in view of Roth et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0077901; hereinafter “Roth”) and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0090960; hereinafter “Anderson”).
As per claims 1 and 11, Bhatt discloses a system for managing data using an execution context, comprising: a memory storing one or more property collections; (See Figs. 1-2, 8, paras. 62, 67, 150-153, wherein memory storing data are disclosed, also See paras. 141-144, wherein grouping of children nodes with parents are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
and a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to execute machine-readable instructions to perform program steps, the program steps comprising: (See Fig. 1, paras. 54-55, wherein processors are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
receiving input data from a client, the input data having an input data format with data fields and respective data field values; (See Figs. 7-8, paras. 22, 74-75, 153, wherein receiving input data (i.e. XML document) are disclosed, also See paras. 75, 80-81, wherein parent and children nodes are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
However, Bhatt fails to disclose instantiating an execution context configured to change processing logic and data requirements of functions at runtime by passing a function a reference to an execution context object and having the function retrieve the data items needed using the execution context object; parsing the input data using an input parser based on the input data format; and storing the parsed data in a first property collection in a standardized format to provide access to the parsed data.
On the other hand, Roth teaches instantiating an execution context configured to change processing logic and data requirements of functions at runtime by passing a function a reference to an execution context object and having the function retrieve the data items needed using the execution context object; (See paras. 29-31, 173, wherein instantiating JS object, features of zone library providing a way to represent dynamic extent in JS framework in which “Zone library that provides a way to represent the dynamic extent of asynchronous calls in JS framework of some embodiments. The zone library dynamically modifies framework's asynchronous AP Is at runtime. Similar to how a scope of a function defines where it may be used, the extent of a call represents the lifetime that it is active. The Zone library of some embodiments also provides execution context that can persist across the lifecycle of one or more asynchronous calls” [0173] are disclosed; as taught by Roth.)
parsing the input data using an input parser based on the input data format; (See Fig. 10A, paras. 197, 217, wherein parsing files defined by the files process are disclosed, also See Fig. 7, paras. 164, 172, wherein providing direct access to data storages are disclosed, also See para. 238, wherein providing standard JSON format is disclosed; as taught by Roth.)
and storing the parsed data in a first property collection in a standardized format to provide access to the parsed data. (See Fig. 7, paras. 164, 172, wherein providing direct access to data storages are disclosed, also See para. 238, wherein providing standard JSON format is disclosed; as taught by Roth.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Roth teachings in the Bhatt system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system of dynamic determination of local and remote API calls taught by Roth in the Bhatt system of efficient relational database system providing XML query support. In addition, both of the references (Bhatt and Roth) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Bhatt and Roth fails to disclose wherein the configuration of the networked computer processor to execute the machine-readable instructions includes configuration to spawn a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions and to spawn a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein the first computer process and the second computer process are spawned concurrently, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to concurrently process data.
On the other hand, Anderson teaches wherein the configuration of the networked computer processor to execute the machine-readable instructions includes configuration to spawn a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions and to spawn a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein the first computer process and the second computer process are spawned concurrently, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to concurrently process data. (See paras. 19, 22-25, wherein running concurrently multiple applications and supporting spawned processes in which “support parallel runtimes for time-critical ephemeral jobs and/or processes with unique environment attributes running on a single system. Embodiments can comprise providing a controller for running concurrently multiple applications [e.g., processes, threads, etc.] with a first application requiring a first set of environment dependencies and for a second application [e.g., processes, threads, etc.] requiring a second set of environment dependencies different from the first set of environment dependencies on a system. Thus, a concurrent server virtualization method may allow for multiple isolated user space instances [e.g., containers, virtualization engines (VE), virtual private servers (VPS), jails, etc.] for the first application and the second application” [0019] are disclosed; as taught by Anderson.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Anderson teachings in the combination of Bhatt and Roth system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate container runtime support taught by Anderson in the combination of Bhatt and Roth system of efficient relational database system providing XML query support. In addition, both of the references (Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2 and 12, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses wherein an input parser factory determines the input parser format based on the input data format. (See Fig. 7, paras. 147-148, wherein transformation process on data and parsing process on verifying and validity of the source XML document are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 3 and 13, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses wherein the input data is received from the client via a listener configured to instantiate the input parser factory. (See paras. 99, 122, wherein instantiating execution context is disclosed, also See Fig. 7, paras. 147-148, wherein transformation process on data and parsing process on verifying and validity of the source XML document are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 4 and 14, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses instantiating an output parser to format output data in the input data format. (See paras. 99, 122, wherein instantiating execution context is disclosed, also See paras. 101, 121-122, wherein query translation functions and generating an output where the translation strategy is rule-based are disclosed, also See Fig. 7, paras. 147-148, wherein transformation process on data and parsing process are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses wherein an output parser factory determines the output parser format based on the input data format. (See paras. 101, 121-122, wherein query translation functions and generating an output where the translation strategy is rule-based are disclosed, also See Fig. 7, paras. 147-148, wherein transformation process on data and parsing process are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses transmitting the output data in the input data format to a client. (See paras. 23, 29, wherein transmitting requested data are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses wherein a responder transmits output data in the input data format to a client using the same manner of transmission. (See paras. 23, 29, wherein transmitting requested data are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
As per claims 10 and 20, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson further discloses executing a rule against one or more stored property collections to generate output data. (See paras. 101, 121-122, wherein query translation functions and generating an output where the translation strategy is rule-based are disclosed, also See paras. 94, 115, wherein parent and children nodes are disclosed; as taught by Bhatt.)
Claims 8-9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0101169; hereinafter “Bhatt”) in view of Roth et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0077901; hereinafter “Roth”) and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0090960; hereinafter “Anderson”) and further in view of Kamara et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0235969; hereinafter “Kamara”).
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson fails to disclose wherein the execution context addresses data using an execution context property path (XPP).
On the other hand, Kamara teaches wherein the execution context addresses data using an execution context property path (XPP). (See paras. 95, 117, wherein XPP is disclosed; as taught by Kamara.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kamara teachings in the combination of Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of controlling security in relational databases taught by Kamara in the combination of Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson system of efficient relational database system providing XML query support. In addition, both of the references (Bhatt, Roth, Anderson, and Kamara) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination Bhatt, Roth, and Anderson fails to disclose wherein the XPP includes a modifier to append additional information to an XPP request.
However, Kamara teaches wherein the XPP includes a modifier to append additional information to an XPP request. (See paras. 31 and 36, wherein modifying process are disclosed, also See paras. 95, 117, wherein XPP is disclosed; as taught by Kamara.)
See claims 8 and 18 for motivation above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from 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.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights