DETAILED ACTION
Application No. 19/172,952 filed on 04/08/2025 has been examined. In this Office Action, claims 1-13 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “at least a first data source and/or at least a second data source”, on lines 3 and 6 provide two different meaning. It is suggested to write in either one format such “and” or “or” for purpose of clarifications. Appropriate correction is 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-13 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claims 1, 13
At Step 1:
The claims are directed to "a method” and “a product” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
The limitation of “providing first data from at least a first data source and/or at least a second data source, detecting by an update detector component a change information for the first data and providing by a version area component a first version information of the detected change information”, recites a mental process because human mind can provide first data from at least a first data source and detect and provide data by evaluation and judgement of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“ a processor and memory,” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application and/or is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP §2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“ validating the change information for the first data by a policy validator component, wherein a policy information containing at least a consistency rule is executed on a common information model to decide about a consistent state of the first data defining whether the change information can be applied to the first data; updating by the version controller component the first version information to a second version information of the validated change information, when the consistent state of the change information is confirmed, and in case, the consistent state of the change information is not confirmed, perform a step of repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information, before re-validating the change information and updating the first version information; supplying the change information with the version information as a production projection to at least a client engineering application”, is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“ validating the change information for the first data by a policy validator component, wherein a policy information containing at least a consistency rule is executed on a common information model to decide about a consistent state of the first data defining whether the change information can be applied to the first data; updating by the version controller component the first version information to a second version information of the validated change information, when the consistent state of the change information is confirmed, and in case, the consistent state of the change information is not confirmed, perform a step of repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information, before re-validating the change information and updating the first version information; supplying the change information with the version information as a production projection to at least a client engineering application” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, ... Of P Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims 2-12 have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the above-mentioned groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narayanan et al (US 2004/0193952 A1).
As per claim 1, Narayanan teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a data consistency between a first data source and at least a second data source in a data engineering system, comprising:
providing first data from at least a first data source and/or at least a second data source (Fig.1, e.g., discloses wherein synchronizing data from data source 104 to destination source); detecting by an update detector component a change information for the first data ([0046], e.g., discloses wherein the source replica 104 in which the changes are made); providing by a version area component a first version information of the detected change information, validating the change information for the first data by a policy validator component, wherein a policy information containing at least a consistency rule is executed on a common information model to decide about a consistent state of the first data defining whether the change information can be applied to the first data; updating by the version controller component the first version information to a second version information of the validated change information, when the consistent state of the change information is confirmed, and in case, the consistent state of the change information is not confirmed, perform a step of repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information, before re-validating the change information and updating the first version information and supplying the change information with the version information as a production projection to at least a client engineering application ([0054]-[0058] e.g., discloses wherein the source enumerates all updated change units within the consistency unit and bundle them. The source then sends the bundled change unit(s) for the given consistency unit to the destination. Conflict detection and resolution is performed, which is the phase of the synchronization process where the replication metadata is compared from the source and destination replicas involved in synchronization, and any conflicts are detected and resolved, the destination applies the bundled change units in a single transaction, including updating the metadata of the consistency unit. This phase of the synchronization process occurs where the changes from the source replica are propagated to the destination replica after conflict detection and resolution have been performed, a check is performed to determine if further updates are to be made. If YES, flow is back to the input of 204 to address the next change unit).
As per claim 2, wherein validating the change information includes verifying the change information by a requirement refiner component, which determines whether the change information fulfils at least a predefined requirement criterion ([0084]-[0089]).
As per claim 3, wherein repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information of the first data comprises marking the detected data inconsistency and blocking to send the change information to the production projection as long as the detected data inconsistency of the change information exists ([0004]-[0060]).
As per claim 4, wherein the step of repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information comprises temporarily projecting the detected data inconsistency, by a client versioning and management interface, to a staging component that initiates repair of the detected data inconsistency of the change information of the first data ([0044]-[0089]).
As per claim 5, wherein after repairing the detected data inconsistency of the change information is successfully performed, the repaired changed information is returned from the staging component to the version controller component for re-validating the repaired change information of the first data ([0044]-[0095]).
As per claim 6, wherein the change information is provided to the second data source after successful re-validating of the change information of the first data ([0044]-[0086]).
As per claim 7, wherein repair of the detected data inconsistency of the change information of the first data is performed by a user-related client engineering application ([0044]-[0086]).
As per claim 8, wherein the provided second version information is permanent in case the change information of the first data is in a consistent state, and the provided second version information is temporary in case the change information of the first data is in an inconsistent state ([0044]-[0095]).
As per claim 9, wherein the policy information is provided by a policy database ([0044]-[0095]).
As per claim 10, wherein the policy database is connectable to at least a policy editor component to edit the policy information of the policy database ([0044]-[0095]).
As per claim 11., wherein a client versioning and management component is provided that has interfaces to each of at least one of the version controller component, the requirement refiner component, and the policy editor, to provide user-related client versioning information to at least one of the version controller component, the requirement refiner component, and the policy editor ([0044]-[0095]).
As per claim 12, wherein the change information is a newly-added data information contained in the first data source but not contained in the second data source ([0044]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in form PTO-892, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166