DETAILED ACTION
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 instant application having Application No. 19/048,717 filed on 09/18/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/07/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 02/07/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Double Patenting
5. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No.2024/0004849 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 2024/0004849 A1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting identifying at least one attribute in the at least one input stream of data, wherein the at least one attribute is associated with a series of features with identifying at least one attribute in the input steam of data, determining the at least one attribute is indicative of an address.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Michael CAMMERT (US-20160048565A1) in view of Abhishek Seth (US-20220398241-A1).
As per claim 1, CAMMERT teaches “A method comprising”:
profiling an input stream of data by, ([0014]-[0015])
identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data, ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045])
“generating a profiled set of data based on the profiling of the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]);
and
“storing the profiled set of data in at least one client database,” ([0014]-[0015], [0050]).
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “determining the at least one attribute is indicative of an address, and in response to determining the at least one attribute is indicative of the
address, processing the at least one attribute through an address library engine that adds the at least one attribute to a library of addresses”’.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by adding the address attribute to a library/list of addresses to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 3, CAMMERT teaches identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data.
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “determining the at least one attribute is indicative of a name ; and in response to determining that the at least one attribute is indicative of the name, processing the at least one attribute through a name engine that associates the at least one attribute with associated names included in a listing of associated names”.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by associating/adding the name attributes to a listing of associated names to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 4, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “receiving at least one set of continuous data profiling tools from a continuous data profiling manager, wherein the continuous data profiling manager is a frontend software application communicatively coupled to the at least one client database,” ([0044]-[0046]).
As per claim 5, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “receiving the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]); and
determining a profiling score for the at least one attribute based on a source of the input stream of data and an aggregation of a series of features associated with the at least one attribute,” ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045]).
As per claim 6, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “connecting at least one continuous data profiling manager application to the at least one client database,” ([0043]-[0046]); and
“receiving at least one instruction or at least one function via the at least one continuous data profiling manager application,” ([0043]-[0046]).
As per claim 8, CAMMERT teaches “A system comprising”:
“one or more processors,” (fig. 2); and
one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a process comprising:
profiling an input stream of data by, ([0014]-[0015])
identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data, ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045])
“generating a profiled set of data based on the profiling of the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]); and
“storing the profiled set of data in at least one client database,” ([0014]-[0015], [0050]).
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “determining the at least one attribute is indicative of an address, and in response to determining the at least one attribute is indicative of the address, processing the at least one attribute through an address library engine that adds the at least one attribute to a library of addresses”’.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by adding the address attribute to a library/list of addresses to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 10, CAMMERT teaches identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data.
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “wherein the process further comprises:
determining the at least one attribute is indicative of a name; and in response to determining that the at least one attribute is indicative of the name, processing the at least one attribute through a name engine that associates the at least one attribute with associated names included in a listing of associated names”.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by associating/adding the name attributes to a listing of associated names to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 11, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “wherein the process further comprises”:
“receiving at least one set of continuous data profiling tools from a continuous data profiling manager, wherein the continuous data profiling manager is a frontend software application communicatively coupled to the at least one client database,” ([0044]-[0046]).
As per claim 12, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “wherein the process further comprises”:
“receiving the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]); and
“determining a profiling score for the at least one attribute based on a source of the input stream of data and an aggregation of a series of features associated with the at least one attribute,” ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045]).
As per claim 13, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “wherein the process further comprises:
“connecting at least one continuous data profiling manager application to the at least one client database,” ([0043]-[0046]); and
“receiving at least one instruction or at least one function via the at least one continuous data profiling manager application,” ([0043]-[0046]).
As per claim 15, CAMMERT teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising”:
profiling an input stream of data by, ([0014]-[0015])
identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data, ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045])
“generating a profiled set of data based on the profiling of the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]); and
“storing the profiled set of data in at least one client database,” ([0014]-[0015], [0050]).
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “determining the at least one attribute is indicative of an address, and in response to determining the at least one attribute is indicative of the address, processing the at least one attribute through an address library engine that adds the at least one attribute to a library of addresses”’.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by adding the address attribute to a library/list of addresses to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 17, CAMMERT teaches identifying at least one attribute in the input stream of data.
CAMMERT does not appear to expressly disclose “determining the at least one attribute is indicative of a name; and in response to determining that the at least one attribute is indicative of the name, processing the at least one attribute through a name engine that associates the at least one attribute with associated names included in a listing of associated names”.
Seth, however, teaches determines an attribute type for each column (or field) in the additional data records of new dataset. An example list/library of different attribute types that might be used in a typical example may include: name, address, phone, identifiers, email, and date of birth ([0044]).
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (determining an attribute type of data records/stream of data, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of CAMMERT with the teaching of Seth by associating/adding the name attributes to a listing of associated names to make it easier for manage and access them.
As per claim 18, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “wherein the operations further comprise”:
“receiving at least one set of continuous data profiling tools from a continuous data profiling manager, wherein the continuous data profiling manager is a frontend software application communicatively coupled to the at least one client database,” ([0044]-[0046]).
As per claim 19, CAMMERT/Seth teaches “wherein the operations further comprise”:
“receiving the input stream of data,” ([0014]-[0015]); and
“determining a profiling score for the at least one attribute based on a source of the input stream of data and an aggregation of a series of features associated with the at least one attribute,” ([0014]-[0015], [0039], [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
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.
Mar. 03, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153