DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Application in Continuation filed on 27 March 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are in independent form.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 27 March 2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
As per claims 1, 11, and 20, the claim(s) recite(s) “receiving an action mapping associated with an event; determining an action based on the action mapping; generating a pair representing the action and the event; and causing the event to be transmitted to a destination based on the pair.”
The limitations directed towards “determining an action based on the action mapping” and “generating a pair representing the action and the event” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may take. Therefore, 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 “hardware processors” and “memory” in claim 11, and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 20, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating an action mapping to determine an action. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and generating a pair representing an action and event. 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.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition to the claim limitations, which were determined to recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, certain elements of claim 1 also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites "receiving an action mapping." This limitation reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering:
“An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The Federal Circuit has held that data gathering steps "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In this case, the pre-solution activity of receiving an action mapping may be considered a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process such as resolving conflicting attributes. This is highly analogous with the example provided above regarding insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering
Additionally, the claimed feature of “causing the event to be transmitted to a destination based on the pair” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “receiving” and “causing the event to be transmitted” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "receiving" and “causing the event to be transmitted” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 2 and 12, the limitations are directed towards further defining the feature of an action mapping, which was previously recited in claims 1 and 11 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims, stating that the action mapping defines a structure of a data payload for delivery, merely describes information content and does not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining a data payload structure is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 3 and 13, the limitations directed towards “identifying,” “converting,” and “partitioning” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As per claims 4-6 and 14-16, the limitations are directed towards further defining the features of a database, a first data object, and a first data record, which were previously recited in claims 3 and 13 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims merely describe previously recited features and do not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining the features of a database, a first data object, and a first data record is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 7 and 17, the limitations directed towards “identifying” and “converting” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As per claims 8 and 18, the limitations directed towards “generating” and “determining” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Additionally, the claimed feature of “transmitting the second plurality of events” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “receiving” and “causing the event to be transmitted” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "transmitting” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the transmitting is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 9 and 19, the limitations directed towards “generating” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Additionally, the claimed feature of “causing display of the load progress” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “causing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "causing display” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the outputting of a load progress is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, the limitations are directed towards further defining the features of a load progress, which were previously recited in claims 3 and 13 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims merely describe previously recited features and do not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining the features of a load progress is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does 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 (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, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmert et al, USPGPUB No. 2014/0207506, filed on 21 January 2014, and published on 24 July 2014, in view of Stephens et al, USPGPUB No. 2023/0153287, filed on 1 November 2022, and published on 19 May 2023.
As per dependent claims 1, 11, and 20, Palmert, in combination with Stephens, discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving an action mapping associated with an event {See Palmert, [0156], wherein this reads over “In FIG. 7, at block 710, a server receives information identifying a plurality of events. Each event may include an action and an item, and each event is associated with a user and a timestamp. In some implementations, the associated user of an event may be a user that performed the event, and the associated timestamp may be the time at which the user performed the event”};
determining an action based on the action mapping {See Palmert, [0164], wherein this reads over “The target event may be an event performed by a user at a first time. The ordered set of events may include one or more events performed in order by the user at a second time, wherein the second time is before the first time”};
generating a pair representing the action and the event {See Palmert, [0164], wherein this reads over “In FIG. 7, at block 730, the server performing method 700 analyzes the data of the first one or more data tables to generate one or more pairs. Each pair includes an ordered set of events and a target event.”}; and
causing the event to be transmitted to a destination based on the pair {See Stephens, [0123], wherein this reads over “Dispatcher 620 then transmits requests 650-1, 650-2, and 650-3 to the identified nodes 120-1, 120-2, and 120-3, respectively. Requests 650-1, 650-2, and 650-3 may be similar or identical to request 650, e.g., they may provide the same query or other task as specified in request 650.”}.
Palmert is directed to the invention of a system for recommending a workflow. Palmert fails to expressly disclose the claimed feature of “causing the event to be transmitted to a destination based on the pair.” Stephens is directed to the invention of partitioning and processing media data. Specifically, Stephens discloses a system wherein requests comprising a query or related task may be transmitted to identified nodes. See Stephens, [0123]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Palmert with that of Stephens such that identified events within the generated pairs of Palmert may be further comprise events such as the tasks or queries of Stephens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination such that an event and action may be efficiently utilized to cause an event to be executed.
As per dependent claims 2 and 12, Palmert, in combination with Stephens, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the action mapping defines a structure of data payload for delivery to the destination {See Stephens, [0087], wherein this reads over “Although shown as a single-level structure, object metadata 112 may be arranged in any suitable manner, which may include a hierarchical structure. Also, the scope of object metadata 112 is not limited to the examples provided. Indeed, object metadata 112 may store any information that facilitates operation of the storage cluster 130 or processing tasks that may be performed therein”}.
As per dependent claims 4 and 14, Palmert, in combination with Stephens, discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the database comprises an object-based storage {See Stephens, [0068], wherein this reads over “In an example, the storage cluster 130 is configured as an object store, which may be compatible with commercially-available cloud-based object stores, such as AWS (Amazon Web Services) S3 (Simple Storage Service), Microsoft Azure Data Lake, and/or Google Cloud Storage. In a particular example, the storage cluster 130 is configured as an S3-compatible object store. To this end, each node 120 may include an API (application program interface) 122 that enables the node 120 to participate as a member of the object store”}.
As per dependent claims 5 and 15, Palmert, in combination with Stephens, discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the first data object comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data object {See Stephens, [0159], wherein this reads over “The boundaries 252 provide separators between processable units 250 of the data object 160 in accordance with a type of the data object (e.g., CSV, JSON, XML, Parquet, video, and so forth)”}.
As per dependent claims 8 and 18, Palmert, in combination with Stephens, discloses:
The method of claim 7, comprising:
generating a second plurality of events based on the second data object {See Stephens, [0122], wherein this reads over “For example, dispatcher 620 checks object metadata 112 to identify segments 170 of the specified data object 160 (or set of objects) and their respective locations in the storage cluster 130. In the simplified example shown, the object metadata 112 identifies three segments 170 (e.g., S1, S2, and S3), which make up the data object 160 (typical results may include tens or hundreds of segments) and three computing nodes 120-1, 120-2, and 120-3 that store the respective segments 170”};
determining that the second plurality of events is associated with the action mapping {See Stephens, [0122], wherein this reads over “For example, dispatcher 620 checks object metadata 112 to identify segments 170 of the specified data object 160 (or set of objects) and their respective locations in the storage cluster 130. In the simplified example shown, the object metadata 112 identifies three segments 170 (e.g., S1, S2, and S3), which make up the data object 160 (typical results may include tens or hundreds of segments) and three computing nodes 120-1, 120-2, and 120-3 that store the respective segments 170”}; and
transmitting the second plurality of events to the destination based on the action mapping {See Stephens, [0123], wherein this reads over “Dispatcher 620 then transmits requests 650-1, 650-2, and 650-3 to the identified nodes 120-1, 120-2, and 120-3, respectively. Requests 650-1, 650-2, and 650-3 may be similar or identical to request 650, e.g., they may provide the same query or other task as specified in request 650.”}.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmert, in view of Stephens, and in further view of Kharidehal et al, USPGPUB No. 2022/0229841, filed on 20 January 2021, and published on 21 July 2022
As per dependent claims 3 and 13, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Kharidehal, discloses:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a first data record from a database {See Kharidehal, [0014], wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, each chunk is processed to serialize and convert the included database records or database query result elements into a converted object format that can be consumed by the automated process”};
converting the first data record into a first data object {See Kharidehal, [0014], wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, each chunk is processed to serialize and convert the included database records or database query result elements into a converted object format that can be consumed by the automated process”}; and
partitioning the first data object into a plurality of files that corresponds to a first plurality of events for delivery to the destination based on the action mapping {See Stephens, [0104], wherein this reads over “In the example shown, the splitter 220 detects the NewLine character at the end of the sixth row as a first boundary 252 following the target size 320, and splits the object 160a at this location. As a result, the first six rows of object 160a form a first portion 350a, and the next two rows form the first two rows of a second portion 350b. Additional rows may be added to the second portion 350b as the splitter 220 continues to scan the object 160a.”}.
The combination of Palmert and Stephens fails to disclose the claimed features directed to “identifying a data record from a database” and “converting the data record into a data object.” Kharidehal is directed to the invention of database streaming for automated processes wherein data may be received and converted into objects. Specifically, Kharidehal discloses that “each chunk is processed to serialize and convert the included database records or database query result elements into a converted object format that can be consumed by the automated process.” See Kharidehal, [0014]. That is, Kharidehal discloses that database records (i.e. a data record that is identified) is converted into an object format (i.e. converted into a data object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Stephens with that of Kharidehal such that the data records of Kharidehal may be converted into objects for subsequent partitioning and processing by the invention of Stephens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination such that the prior art combination of Palmert and Stephens may be able to further include data objects generated from a data record, wherein the potentially large size of a data record may be partitioned into smaller segments for improved processing as disclosed by Stephens.
As per dependent claims 6 and 16, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Kharidehal, discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the first data record comprises a result of execution of a query against the database {See Kharidehal, [0015], wherein this reads over “For example, a data stream request message is created and transmitted to an intermediary server to retrieve the requested data. The intermediary server requests and obtains the data from the external database and sends a stream of the obtained data of the external database. For example, in response to the data stream request message, the intermediary server executes the corresponding data request such as an SQL database query and provides the query results as a stream”}, and wherein the query comprises a Structured Query Language (SQL) query {See Kharidehal, [0015], wherein this reads over “For example, in response to the data stream request message, the intermediary server executes the corresponding data request such as an SQL database query and provides the query results as a stream”}.
As per dependent claims 7 and 17, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Kharidehal, discloses:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a second data record from a database {See Kharidehal, [0014], wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, each chunk is processed to serialize and convert the included database records or database query result elements into a converted object format that can be consumed by the automated process”};
identifying metadata associated with the second data record, the metadata indicating one or more changes associated with the second data record {See Stephens, [0087], wherein this reads over “Although shown as a single-level structure, object metadata 112 may be arranged in any suitable manner, which may include a hierarchical structure. Also, the scope of object metadata 112 is not limited to the examples provided. Indeed, object metadata 112 may store any information that facilitates operation of the storage cluster 130 or processing tasks that may be performed therein”}; and
converting the second data record into a second data object based on the metadata {See Kharidehal, [0014], wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, each chunk is processed to serialize and convert the included database records or database query result elements into a converted object format that can be consumed by the automated process”}.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmert, in view of Stephens, and in further view of Bowman et al, USPGPUB No. 2003/0061225, filed on 25 September 2022, and published on 27 March 2003.
As per dependent claim 9, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Bowman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
generating a load progress based on a delivery status of the event {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “The user will be prompted to load the data once the user has finished the setup process for the virtual strategy data loader. As the data is being loaded, a progress display screen (not shown) shows the status of the loading operation.”}; and
causing display of the load progress on a device {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “The user will be prompted to load the data once the user has finished the setup process for the virtual strategy data loader. As the data is being loaded, a progress display screen (not shown) shows the status of the loading operation.”}.
The cited prior art combination of Palmert and Stephens fails to disclose the features of the instant claim limitations. Bowman is directed to the invention of a hierarchical hybrid OLAP scenario management system, wherein data is loaded and processed. Specifically, Bowman discloses that during the loading of the data, a progress display screen may be displayed to show the status of the loading operation. See Bowman, [0148]. This would read upon the instant claim limitations which require “generating a load progress…” and “causing display of the load progress.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art combination of Palmert and Stephens with that of Bowman such that the progress of the data being transmitted by Stephens may be tracked visually via the GUI display screen of Bowman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination such that users may be able to visualize the amount of data which has been transmitted thus far.
As per dependent claim 9, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Bowman, discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein the load progress comprises one of a pending status, a successful status, and a failed status, and further comprises a count of errors or warnings returned by a downstream Application Programming Interface (API) {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “While the data is being loaded, the user will notice a counter for the "Number of Errors Inserting." This occurs whenever there is an error writing a record to the database. In the case of an error, the SQL statement that caused the error is written to a text file called "Data Loading Error Log.”}.
As per dependent claim 19, Palmert, in combination with Stephens and Bowman, discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the operations comprise:
generating a load progress based on a delivery status of the event {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “The user will be prompted to load the data once the user has finished the setup process for the virtual strategy data loader. As the data is being loaded, a progress display screen (not shown) shows the status of the loading operation.”}; and
causing display of the load progress on a device, the load progress {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “The user will be prompted to load the data once the user has finished the setup process for the virtual strategy data loader. As the data is being loaded, a progress display screen (not shown) shows the status of the loading operation.”} comprising one of a pending status, a successful status, and a failed status, and further comprises a count of errors or warnings returned by a downstream Application Programming Interface (API) {See Bowman, [0148], wherein this reads over “While the data is being loaded, the user will notice a counter for the "Number of Errors Inserting." This occurs whenever there is an error writing a record to the database. In the case of an error, the SQL statement that caused the error is written to a text file called "Data Loading Error Log.”}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/