Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 19/039,357, filed on 1/28/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 18/239,471 filed on 08/29/2023 is now US PAT 12,235,829, 18/239,471 has DOM PRO 63/402,599 filed on 08/31/2022
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending, claims 1-20 are canceled in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 3/28/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 3/14/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/402,599 filed on 08/31/2022
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Specification
At para 0001 (as filed 1/28/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application #, applicant is hereby required to update the status of the US application(s) in response to this office action.
in the specification, at para 0001 (as filed 1/28/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application # Examiner notes that incorporation by reference of an application in a printed United States patent constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. § 122 warranting that access of the original disclosure of the application be granted. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file, In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm'r Pat. 1986). If Applicant objects to access to the entire application file, two copies of the information incorporated by reference must be submitted along with the objection. Failure to provide the material within the period provided will result in the entire application (including prosecution) being made available to petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Engineering Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm'r Pat. 1913).
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 28,38 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.
As to the claims 28,38 it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the one or more functional relationships ……………. a function to be applied to data in the base dataframe, particularly to be appears as being idenfinite for failing to particularly point out.
Appropriate correction required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 21,31,39, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
claims1 - 20. (Cancelled)
claim 21,31 (New)
receiving one or more functional relationships associated with one or more object types in a base dataframe;
adding one or more system columns to one or more data structures in an intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
synthetically generating intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
synthetically generating the notional data based at least in part on the generated intermediate data and the one or more system columns; and
outputting the generated notional data;
claim 39:
the additional limitation “filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures in the one intermediate dataframe of the plurality of intermediate dataframes based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships to synthetically generate intermediate data in the one intermediate dataframe
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors for data processing”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example receiving, adding, generating data, filtering relationship data, these limitations encompasses the user thinking of collection of 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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 4, 0086-0087,0097-0100 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition, fig 4, 0086-0087,0097-0100 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 22,32 (New) further elaborates The method of claim 21, wherein the intermediate dataframe is different from the base dataframe”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 23,33. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein the synthetically generating the notional data comprises:
synthetically generating the notional data in a notional dataframe by removing the one or more system columns in the intermediate dataframe;
wherein the notional dataframe is different from the base dataframe and the intermediate dataframe”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 24,34. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more functional relationships include at least one selected from a group consisting of hierarchical relationship, time-series relationship, geographic movement relationship, and trend relationship”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 25,35,. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more data structures include one or more data tables”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 26,36. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the synthetically generating intermediate data comprises:
generating the relationship data in one of the one or more system columns based at least in part on a trend relationship including changes in a trend, the trend relationship being one of the one or more functional relationships”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 27,37. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the synthetically generating intermediate data comprises:
generating the relationship data in one of the one or more system columns based at least in part on a hierarchical relationship indicating a statistical data property of a dataset for an entity, the hierarchical relationship being one of the one or more functional relationships”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 28,38. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship defining a function to be applied to data in the base dataframe”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 29. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship including one or more randomized changes to be applied to data in the base dataframe”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 30. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship including increments or decrements by a percentage within a predetermined range”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 40. (New) The method of claim 39, wherein the one intermediate dataframe is a first intermediate dataframe;
wherein the data is one or more first data sequences;
wherein the one or more functional relationships include a time-based relationship;
wherein the synthetically generating intermediate data comprises:
generating one or more second data sequences in a second intermediate dataframe of the plurality of intermediate dataframes, the second intermediate dataframe being subsequent to the first intermediate dataframe, by at least:
adding, in the second intermediate dataframe, the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
filling the relationship data in the one or more data structures in the second intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships; and
generating the one or more second data sequences in the second intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more first data sequences in the first intermediate dataframe and the one or more functional relationships”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 of US Application No. 19/039,357 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,829. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/039,357
US Patent No. 12,235,829
Claim 21,31,39, A method for generating notional data for data processing, the method comprising:
receiving one or more functional relationships associated with one or more object types in a base dataframe;
adding one or more system columns to one or more data structures in an intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
synthetically generating intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
synthetically generating the notional data based at least in part on the generated intermediate data and the one or more system columns; and
outputting the generated notional data;
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors for data processing.
Claim 1,9,17, A method for generating notional data for data processing, the method comprising:
receiving seed data of one or more object types in a base dataframe;
defining one or more functional relationships associated with the one or more object types, at least one functional relationship of the one or more functional relationships specifying a change to seed data of one object type of the one or more object types;
synthetically generating intermediate data of the one or more object types based at least in part on the seed data in the base dataframe and the one or more functional relationships by at least:
adding one or more system columns to one or more data structures in an intermediate dataframe corresponding to the one or more object types based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships; and
generating the intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships;
synthetically generating the notional data based at least in part on the generated intermediate data of the one or more object types and the one or more system columns; and
outputting the generated notional data to one or more memories that store the generated notional data;
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors for data processing
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,829 to arrive at the claims 21-40 of the instant application 18/604,868 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 23,33 instant application 18/604,868 synthetically generating intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,829, synthetically generating intermediate data of the one or more object types based at least in part on the seed data in the base dataframe and the one or more functional relationships generating the intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships limitation(s) is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 18/604,868 claim 23,33, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 21,31 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1,9,17 to arrive at the claims 21,31,39 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rehal, US Pub. No. 2018/0095952 published Apr, 2018.
Claims 1 - 20. (Cancelled)
As to claim 21,31. (New) Rehal teaches a system which including “A method for generating notional data for data processing, the method comprising (Rehal: Abstract, fig 1 – Rehal teaches data processing, managing data in a data repository)
PNG
media_image1.png
279
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receiving one or more functional relationships associated with one or more object types in a base dataframe”” (Rehal: fig 17, 0349,0351 Rehal defines hierarchical data structure defining functional relationship including data type, entity, parent, grandparent relationsip satisfying dataframe, particularly instant specification dataframe para 0034,0037 is identical to Rehal’s fig 17)
PNG
media_image2.png
373
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“adding one or more system columns to one or more data structures in an intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal: fig 9, 0229-0231 – Rehal teaches add(ing) entries in a given column to the table, defining functional relationship between data in performing statistical function particularly distinct values per column is identified in processing and identifying respective data values for the added column pairs, is identical to instant specification 0034, 0037-0038);
PNG
media_image3.png
466
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“synthetically generating intermediate data by filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal : fig 3, 0126-0139, 0152-0155, fig 3-4 – Rehal teaches data lake schema that including generating metadata schema changes that affecting the data lake data particularly adding column to a table, change in column length and/size thereby filling set of schema changes, thus provides extensible schema that affects functional relationships such as index change, list of tables and like);
PNG
media_image4.png
161
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
260
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
synthetically generating the notional data based at least in part on the generated intermediate data and the one or more system columns” (Rehal: fig 2A-2B, 0082-0084, 0089-0090 – Rehal teaches data import process from a source database table(s) and involves schema changes to the table(s), changes to the metadata) ;
PNG
media_image6.png
279
194
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
220
301
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
179
131
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and outputting the generated notional data” (Rehal: 0236 – Rehal output identified data schema information);
“wherein the method is performed using one or more processors for data processing” (Rehal: fig 26-27, 0027,0457-0459 – Rehal teaches system configured both hardware and software).
PNG
media_image9.png
193
391
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 22,32, Rehal disclosed “ wherein the intermediate dataframe is different from the base dataframe” (Rehal: 0014,0061,0070, fig 1-2).
As to Claim 23,33, Rehal disclosed:
“synthetically generating the notional data in a notional dataframe by removing the one or more system columns in the intermediate dataframe” (Rehal: fig 5A,0167-0168);
“wherein the notional dataframe is different from the base dataframe and the intermediate dataframe” (Rehal: fig 5A-B, 0167-0168,0176,0178)
As to Claim 24,34, Rehal disclosed “wherein the one or more functional relationships include at least one selected from a group consisting of hierarchical relationship, time-series relationship, geographic movement relationship, and trend relationship” (Rehal: 0349,0352-0353,0358)
PNG
media_image2.png
373
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
283
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 25,35, Rehal disclosed “wherein the one or more data structures include one or more data tables” (Rehal: fig 5A, 6A, fig 8)
PNG
media_image11.png
97
289
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
145
322
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
259
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 26,36, Rehal disclosed:
“generating the relationship data in one of the one or more system columns based at least in part on a trend relationship including changes in a trend, the trend relationship being one of the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal: fig 13-14, 0262-0266,0273, 0290)
PNG
media_image14.png
439
298
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
287
298
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 27,37, Rehal disclosed:
“generating the relationship data in one of the one or more system columns based at least in part on a hierarchical relationship indicating a statistical data property of a dataset for an entity (Rehal: 0231, 0297-0298)the hierarchical relationship being one of the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal : 0349,0352-0353,0358).
As to Claim 28,38, Rehal disclosed: “wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship defining a function to be applied to data in the base dataframe” (Rehal: fig 9, 0229-0231)
As to Claim 29,39, Rehal disclosed “wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship including one or more randomized changes to be applied to data in the base dataframe” (Rehal: 0129-0142)
As to Claim 30, Rehal disclosed wherein the one or more functional relationships includes a change relationship including increments or decrements by a percentage within a predetermined range” (Rehal: fig 9, 0234-0236).
As to Claim 39. (New) Rehal teaches a system which including “A method for generating notional data for data processing, the method comprising: (Rehal: Abstract, fig 1 – Rehal teaches data processing, managing data in a data repository)
“receiving an input indicating one or more functional relationships associated with one or more object types in a base dataframe” (Rehal: fig 17, 0349,0351 Rehal defines hierarchical data structure defining functional relationship including data type, entity, parent, grandparent relationship satisfying dataframe, particularly instant specification dataframe para 0034,0037 is identical to Rehal’s fig 17)
PNG
media_image2.png
373
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“adding, in one intermediate dataframe of a plurality of intermediate dataframes, one or more system columns to one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal: fig 9, 0229-0231 – Rehal teaches add(ing) entries in a given column to the table, defining functional relationship between data in performing statistical function particularly distinct values per column is identified in processing and identifying respective data values for the added column pairs, is identical to instant specification 0034, 0037-0038);
PNG
media_image3.png
466
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“filling relationship data in the one or more system columns in the one or more data structures in the one intermediate dataframe of the plurality of intermediate dataframes based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships to synthetically generate intermediate data in the one intermediate dataframe” (Rehal: fig 10-14A, 0176-0178,0288-0292,0297-0299)
synthetically generating the notional data based at least in part on the generated intermediate data and the one or more system columns (Rehal: fig 2A-2B, 0082-0084, 0089-0090 – Rehal teaches data import process from a source database table(s) and involves schema changes to the table(s), changes to the metadata) ;
PNG
media_image6.png
279
194
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
220
301
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; and outputting the generated notional data” (Rehal: 0236 – Rehal output identified data schema information);
PNG
media_image8.png
179
131
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“wherein the method is performed using one or more processors for data processing” (Rehal: fig 26-27, 0027,0457-0459 – Rehal teaches system configured both hardware and software).
PNG
media_image9.png
193
391
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
As to Claim 40, Rehal disclosed
“wherein the data is one or more first data sequences” (Rehal: 0137-0138);
“wherein the one or more functional relationships include a time-based relationship” (Rehal : 0060,0111);
“wherein the synthetically generating intermediate data comprises(Rehal: 0229-0231):
“generating one or more second data sequences in a second intermediate dataframe of the plurality of intermediate dataframes, the second intermediate dataframe being subsequent to the first intermediate dataframe” (Rehal: fig 6A, 0193-0194, 0266-0268, 0493), by at least:
“adding, in the second intermediate dataframe, the one or more data structures based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal: fig 9, 0229-0231);
filling the relationship data in the one or more data structures in the second intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more functional relationships (Rehal: fig 10-14A, 0176-0178,0288-0292,0297-0299)
; and
“generating the one or more second data sequences in the second intermediate dataframe based at least in part on the one or more first data sequences in the first intermediate dataframe and the one or more functional relationships” (Rehal: 0112-0122, 0268-0269).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2018/0095952
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154