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 .
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinshaw et al. (US 2004/0225666 A1), hereinafter “Hinshaw”, and in view of Kung et al. (US 2013/0166515 A1), hereinafter “Kung”.
As per claim 1, Hinshaw teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
“receiving a record from a data source at a server, wherein the record includes a plurality of fields” at [0031];
(Hinshaw teaches the storage unit 100 receive a new record 102 to be inserted into the base table 116)
“processing the record at the server,
(Hinshaw teaches processing the received record 102 by storing the record in the Newstuff 114. Newstuff is scanned to determine whether any new records need to be returned in response to a particular query)
“after the processing, storing the record in a primary table of a database on a first server, wherein the record is associated with a primary key in the primary table that is unique to the record” at [0031], [0037];
(Hinshaw teaches inserting the new record into the base table 116 at the time of low activity on the storage unit. Hinshaw teaches the records of the base table includes a plurality of columns, wherein in column include value that is unique to the record, such as “OrderNumber”)
“creating a view based on the primary table” at [0037]-[0038], [0042]-[0043].
(Hinshaw teaches creating a view based on the base table that provides the user only with particular columns, such as OrderNumber, OrderCustomer, OrderDate, OrderCost, while filtering out other information stored in the base table”)
Hinshaw does not explicitly teach “the processing includes performing data validation of the record” as claimed. However, Kung teaches a data consolidation system which receives data record from data sources and performing data validation on data records at [0024]-[0030] and Fig. 2. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kung with Hinshaw's teaching in order to ensure the data record contains correct/valid data format before storing the data record.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent No. 12,314,242. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,314,242 contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application, as detailed in the mapping table below, and as such anticipate claim 1 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 19/193,871
US Patent No. 12,314,242
1.A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a record from a data source at a server, wherein the record includes a plurality of fields
processing the record at the server, wherein the processing includes performing data validation of the record;
after the processing, storing the record in a primary table of a database on a first server, wherein the record is associated with a primary key in the primary table that is unique to the record;
and creating a view based on the primary table.
1.A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a record from a data source at an ingest server, wherein the record includes a plurality of fields;
processing the record in memory at the ingest server, wherein the processing includes performing data validation of the record wherein performing the data validation includes determining that the record includes an appropriate number of fields, determining that data values of each of the plurality of fields match a predefined data type for the field, and determining that the data value of a particular field of the plurality of fields in the record is within predefined bounds for the field, wherein the predefined bounds are defined for the data source and are specific to the data source;
after the processing, storing the record in a primary table of a database on a first storage server, wherein the record is associated with a primary key in the primary table that is unique to the record;
and creating a view based on the primary table;
updating the view automatically at a determined refresh cycle; determining the refresh cycle by: determining a time lag between the processing the record in memory at the ingest server and an operation that accesses the view; setting the refresh cycle to be real-time when the time lag is lower than a threshold; and setting the refresh cycle to be a periodic time interval when the time lag is not lower than the threshold.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
February 9, 2026