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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,451. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants as independent claim 1 of the instant invention is broader than independent claim 1 of Patent No. 12,282,451. Claims 1 and 5 of the instant invention are fully encompassed within claim 1 of Patent No. 12,282,451, claim 8 and 12 of the instant invention are fully encompassed within claim 7 of Patent No. 12,282,451, and claim 15 and 19 of the instant invention are fully encompassed within claim 13 of Patent No. 12,282,451. Additionally, the instant invention discloses “accessing an array of files…,” whereas Patent No. 12,282,451 discloses “receiving the array of files…,” which are obvious variants as shown in the comparison table below.
Instant Application Claims
Patent No. 12,282,451
Claim 1. A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
(Claim 5. adjust a number of files in the array of files based on computational resources used by the loader component, the validation component, or the enrichment component)
access an array of files from a plurality of original databases with a loader component;
validate the array of files with a validation component;
enrich the array of files with an enrichment component, wherein enriching the array of files includes instructions that are executable by the processor to perform at least one of:
identifying data within a file that is includable in an updated file type;
splitting data across multiple fields to make the data across the multiple fields conform to the updated file type;
compressing data from multiple fields into a single field to conform the data from the multiple fields to the updated file type; or
providing placeholder data to enable a file to conform to the updated file type; and
load the array of files to a migration hub.
Claim 1. A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
adjust a number of files in an array of files based on computational resources used by a loader component, a validation component, or an enrichment component;
receive the array of files from a plurality of original databases to the loader component from a file watcher;
validate the array of files with the validation component;
enrich the array of files with the enrichment component, wherein enriching the array of files includes instructions that are executable by the processor to perform at least one of:
identifying data within a file that is includable in an updated file type;
splitting data across multiple fields to make the data conform to the updated file type;
compressing data from multiple fields into a single field to make the data conform to the updated file type; or
providing placeholder data to enable a file to conform to the updated file type; and
load the array of files to a migration hub.
Claims 2-4
Claims 2-4
Claim 6
Claim 5
Claim 7
Claim 6
Claims 8 & 12
Claim 7
Claims 9-11
Claims 8-10
Claim 13
Claim 11
Claim 14
Claim 12
Claims 15 & 19
Claim 13
Claims 16-18
Claims 14-16
Claim 20
Claim 17
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “access an array of files from a plurality of original databases with a loader component,” however, the applicant’s original disclosure fails to provide support for this limitation. The applicant’s specification discloses in paragraphs [0016] “The file watcher 102 may receive files of various formats and sizes from various databases and entities,” [0018] “The loader component 104 may receive the array of files from the file watcher,” and [0032] “the processor 202 may receive an array of files to a loader component 104 from a file watcher 102.” As such, the specification discloses that the loader component receives the files from the file watcher after the file watcher receives the files from various databases. There is no disclosure of the loader component accessing an array of files from a plurality of various/original databases. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. The applicant is reminded to utilize language consistent with the applicant’s original disclosure to avoid the appearance/addition of new matter being added to the claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0221623; hereinafter Ebrahimi) in view of Arevalo Baeza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0046854; hereinafter Arevalo Baeza).
Regarding claim 1, Ebrahimi discloses a computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to {¶¶ [0055]-[0057] computer system with processors and computer-readable medium}:
access an array of files from a plurality of original databases with a loader component {¶¶ [0031], [0043], [0050] a module receives/collects files and data (e.g., such as an array of files) from source systems}; but fails to explicitly disclose with a loader component;
validate the array of files with a validation component {¶¶ [0032], [0044] a data validation module validates the received/collected files and data};
enrich the array of files with an enrichment component, wherein enriching the array of files includes instructions that are executable by the processor to perform at least one of: identifying data within a file that is includable in an updated file type {¶ [0044] file data can be identified as being missing, invalid, needing conversion/transformation into a compatible format for a client system}; splitting data across multiple fields to make the data across the multiple fields conform to the updated file type; compressing data from multiple fields into a single field to conform the data from the multiple fields to the updated file type; or providing placeholder data to enable a file to conform to the updated file type; and
load the array of files to a migration hub {¶ [0047] the collected file data is stored in a database (e.g., such as a migration hub)}.
However, Arevalo Baeza discloses access an array of files from a plurality of original databases with a loader component {¶ [0037] a folder watcher passes files to a file parser (e.g., such as a loader)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Ebrahimi and Arevalo Baeza before him/her, to modify the teachings of Ebrahimi with the teachings of Arevalo Baeza. The motivation for doing so would combine the watcher module of Ebrahimi with the folder watcher of Arevalo Baeza to pass files/data to a parser for further processing of data to yield the predictable results of optimized data processing by moving data through various stages thereby reducing unnecessary data transfers and computations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ebrahimi and Arevalo Baeza discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to redirect incomplete files from the array of files to a reconciliation component for an elevated inspection process, wherein the elevated inspection process is navigable with a graphical user interface {Ebrahimi: ¶¶ [0044], [0049], [0052]}.
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 16 contain corresponding limitations as claims 1 and 2 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0221623; hereinafter Ebrahimi) in view of Arevalo Baeza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0046854; hereinafter Arevalo Baeza) and further in view of Briggi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0101199).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ebrahimi and Arevalo Baeza discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor, but fails to disclose, however, Briggi discloses to insert every file in the array of files to the migration hub before committing every file in the array of files simultaneously to the migration hub {¶¶ [0024], [0026], [0027] loads documents into the system database and when all of the files have been loaded, the batch of files are then committed to the database}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Ebrahimi, Arevalo Baeza and Briggi before him/her, to modify the teachings of Ebrahimi with the teachings of Briggi. The motivation for doing so would combine the database of Ebrahimi with the database of Briggi to batch commit data files to yield the predictable results of streamlining database operations and enhancing performance.
Claims 10 and 17 contain corresponding limitations as claim 3 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0221623; hereinafter Ebrahimi) in view of Arevalo Baeza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0046854; hereinafter Arevalo Baeza) and further in view of Dola (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0293980).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ebrahimi and Arevalo Baeza discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor, but fails to disclose, however, Dola discloses to receive, from a file watcher, a list of expected files from the enrichment component and report files missing from the list of expected files {¶¶ [0066], [0067] a counter for checking files that are received and an alert is generated when a file is missing from the count}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Ebrahimi, Arevalo Baeza and Dola before him/her, to modify the teachings of Ebrahimi with the teachings of Dola. The motivation for doing so would combine the missing files of Ebrahimi with the missing files of Dola to provide a record check module that tracks files and triggers alerts for missing files thereby providing a desired level of data integrity as disclosed by Dola [0066].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ebrahimi and Arevalo Baeza discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises instructions that are executable by the processor, but fails to disclose, however, Dola discloses to load the files within the array of files into the migration hub in parallel {¶¶ [0014], [0022], [0026] files may be loaded/sent to a database in a data warehouse in parallel}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Ebrahimi, Arevalo Baeza and Dola before him/her, to modify the teachings of Ebrahimi with the teachings of Dola. The motivation for doing so would combine the database of Ebrahimi with the database of Dola for parallel processing of data to yield the predictable results of scalability and faster processing thereby improving responsiveness and efficiency of systems.
Claims 11, 14 and 18 contain corresponding limitations as claims 4 and 7 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
NOTE: Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 do not have a prior art rejection, however, they do stand rejected based upon the above-mentioned Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166