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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 07/30/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-40 have been added.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Priority
2. This application is a Continuation of 18/185,258 (Patent US 12,406,316), which was filed on 03/16/2023, was acknowledged and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 21, 30 and 39 recite:
A method for importing data, the method comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a transformation template based at least in part on the source electronic file;
generating a template applicator based at least in part on the transformation template;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system; wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitations of importing data that includes: receiving a source file, determining a transformation template, generating a template applicator, transforming the source file into a target file and providing or importing the transformed file for some that, 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, “computer method’; nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components 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 (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 21, 30 and 39 recite the additional element, “transforming … importing.” these limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “transforming …importing”, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(qd)/(II) (iv) transferring and/or displaying information, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
Dependent Claims 22-29, 31-38 and 40
The limitations as recited in dependent claims 22, 31 and 40 recite, “wherein the template applicator includes a software plugin...” which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
Claims 23 and 32 recite, “wherein the transformation template includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a temporal data format, a numerical data format, a name format, and a canonical format...” which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
Claims 24, 27, 33 and 36 recite, “identifying a file type based on the source electronic data file; wherein the transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator includes transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator based on the identified file type.” which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
Claims 25 and 34 recite, “wherein the identifying a file type of the source electronic data file includes extracting a text string at a predetermined file location in the source electronic data file and determining the file type based on the extracted text string...” which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
Claims 26 and 35 recite, “wherein the identifying a file type of the source electronic data file includes: generate instructions for displaying a visual indicator for indicating that the file type associated with the source electronic data file is to be determined; and receive a file type identifier associated with the source electronic data file.”, which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
Claims 28, 29 37 and 38 recites “ receiving a source file” which further describes the concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, in step 2A prong one.
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" ranted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,872. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 192000862
Patent US 12,326,872
Claim 21:
A method for importing data, the method comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a transformation template based at least in part on the source electronic file;
generating a template applicator based at least in part on the transformation template;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file
using the generated template applicator; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis
system;
wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
Claim 1:
A method for importing data, the method comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a file type of the source electronic data file;
receiving information associated with transformed electronic data file;
selecting a detector/transformer plugin from a plurality of detector/transformer plugins by at least:
for each detector/transformer plugin in at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins, determining whether the each detector/transformer plugin is capable of transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file based on the file type and the information associated with the transformed electronic data file; and
selecting the selected detector/transformer plugin based on one or more priorities associated with the at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the selected detector/transformer plugin; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system;
wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
Claim 30:
A system for importing data, the system comprising: one or more processors; and
one or more memories having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a transformation template based at least in part on the source electronic file;
generating a template applicator based at least in part on the transformation template;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system.
Claim 10:
A system for importing data, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a file type of the source electronic data file;
receiving information associated with transformed electronic data file;
selecting a detector/transformer plugin from a plurality of detector/transformer plugins by at least: for each detector/transformer plugin in at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins, determining whether the each detector/transformer plugin is capable of transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file based on the file type and the information associated with the transformed electronic data file; and
selecting the selected detector/transformer plugin based on one or more priorities associated with the at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the selected detector/transformer plugin; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system.
Claim 39:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions for important data that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a transformation template based at least in part on the source electronic
file;
generating a template applicator based at least in part on the transformation template;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file
using the generated template applicator; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system.
Claim 19:
A method for importing data, the method comprising:
receiving a source electronic data file;
determining a file type of the source electronic data file;
selecting a detector/transformer plugin from a plurality of detector/transformer plugins by at least: for each detector/transformer plugin in at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins, determining whether the each detector/transformer plugin is capable of transforming the source electronic data file into transformed electronic data file based on the file type; and
selecting the selected detector/transformer plugin based on one or more priorities associated with the at least a portion of the plurality of detector/transformer plugins;
transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the selected detector/transformer plugin by at least:
determining that the selected detector/transformer plugin is associated with a transformation template; and
mapping the source electronic data file to a canonical format included in the transformation template; and
providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system; wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
Examiner’s Note
7. Is media file a numerical format file? (According to Google): “Yes, a media file (such as an audio, video, or image file) is a numerical format file. At their core, all digital media files are stored as binary data—sequences of 0s and 1s.”
Madhani et al, US 9,298,780, [Madhani: Abstract and column 2, lines 5-16 (“As more data extraction templates associated with a given source document type are received, the data extraction templates having the lowest data extraction template ranking scores are detected/eliminated”)] [Madhani: Column 13, lines 44-54 (“the data acceptance weighting factor data assigned to the data extraction template is then processed and transformed into data extraction template ranking score data for the data extraction template”)].
Dion et al, US 20140006935, [Dion: Abstract and paragraphs 4, 8 and 35 (“This includes providing a source document template, parsing the source document template into source parsed elements, converting at least some of the source parsed elements that require conversion for a destination document template and thereby providing destination template elements … generating a destination document template from the destination template elements”, i.e., “destination document template” is considered as ‘transformation template’)] [Dion: Paragraphs 26 and 39 (“transmitted to an auditor module for presenting to the operator the source parsed elements and associated destination elements and accepting operator input to correct some destination elements”, i.e., ‘importing into a data analysis system’)] [Dion: Paragraph 36 (“may generate preliminary destination templates of any other suitable file formats that can be read by the new system”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 21, 24-25, 27, 30, 33-34, 36-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dion et al (US 20140006935).
Claim 21:
Dion suggests a method for importing data, the method comprising: receiving a source electronic data file [Dion: Paragraph 39 (“A parsing module 702 receives as input a source document template 402 and parses the template 402 into source parsed elements”)]. Dion suggests determining a transformation template based at least in part on the source electronic file [Dion: Abstract and paragraphs 4, 8 and 35 (“This includes providing a source document template, parsing the source document template into source parsed elements, converting at least some of the source parsed elements that require conversion for a destination document template and thereby providing destination template elements … generating a destination document template from the destination template elements”, i.e., “destination document template” is considered as ‘transformation template’)]. Dion suggests generating a template applicator based at least in part on the transformation template [Dion: Abstract and paragraphs 4, 8 and 35 (“This includes providing a source document template, parsing the source document template into source parsed elements, converting at least some of the source parsed elements that require conversion for a destination document template and thereby providing destination template elements … generating a destination document template from the destination template elements”, i.e., “destination document template” is considered as ‘transformation template’)]. Dion suggests transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator [Dion: Abstract and paragraphs 4, 8 and 35 (“This includes providing a source document template, parsing the source document template into source parsed elements, converting at least some of the source parsed elements that require conversion for a destination document template and thereby providing destination template elements … generating a destination document template from the destination template elements”, i.e., “destination document template” is considered as ‘transformation template’)]. Dion suggests providing the transformed electronic data file for importing into a data analysis system; wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors [Dion: Paragraphs 26 and 39 (“transmitted to an auditor module for presenting to the operator the source parsed elements and associated destination elements and accepting operator input to correct some destination elements”, i.e., ‘importing into a data analysis system’)].
Claim 24:
Dion suggests identifying a file type based on the source electronic data file; wherein the transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator includes transforming the source electronic data file into the transformed electronic data file using the generated template applicator based on the identified file type [Dion: Abstract and paragraphs 4, 8 and 35 (“This includes providing a source document template, parsing the source document template into source parsed elements, converting at least some of the source parsed elements that require conversion for a destination document template and thereby providing destination template elements … generating a destination document template from the destination template elements”, i.e., “destination document template” is considered as ‘transformation template’)].
Claim 25:
Dion suggests wherein the identifying a file type of the source electronic data file includes extracting a text string at a predetermined file location in the source electronic data file and determining the file type based on the extracted text string [Dion: Paragraphs 7, 28 and 37 (“source parsed elements which could represent fixed text, data source field”)].
Claim 27:
Dion suggests wherein the identifying a file type of the source electronic data file includes identifying the file type based on at least one selected from a group consisting of a file format, a file structure, a text string, a metadata, one or more file headers, an order of the one or more file headers, and a type of data [Dion: Paragraphs 7, 28 and 37 (“source parsed elements which could represent fixed text, data source field”)].
Claim 28:
Dion suggests wherein the receiving a source electronic data file includes receiving a plurality of source electronic data files from a single entity [Dion: Paragraph 7, 28 and 37 (“The method includes providing a source document template, (e.g. an original template document of a legacy system),”)].
Claim 30:
Claim 30 is essentially the same as claim 21 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 33:
Claim 33 is essentially the same as claim 24 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 34:
Claim 34 is essentially the same as claim 25 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 36:
Claim 36 is essentially the same as claim 27 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 37:
Claim 37 is essentially the same as claim 28 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 39:
Claim 39 is essentially the same as claim 21 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 22-23, 31-32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion et al (US 20140006935), in view of Kiilerich et al (US 20070226238).
Claim 22:
The combined teachings of Dion and Kiilerich suggests wherein the template applicator includes a software plugin [Kiilerich: Title, Abstract and paragraph 12 (“The system receives a file and provides it to a plug-in to generate a corresponding file having a native file format if the file is not already in a native file format”)].
Both references (Dion and Kiilerich) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dion and Kiilerich before him/her, to modify the system of Dion with the teaching of Kiilerich in order to transform files using transformation plug-ins [Kiilerich: Title, Abstract and paragraph 12].
Claim 23:
The combined teachings of Dion and Kiilerich suggests wherein the transformation template includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a temporal data format, a numerical data format, a name format, and a canonical format [Kiilerich: Paragraph 4 (“The media player or file library system determines supported and preferred file formats from the media device. The media player or file library system then provides the original file or the converted file, depending on which format the device prefers. Optionally, the media player or file library system may convert the media content to a preferred format if the media content is not immediately available to the media player or file library system in a preferred file format”, i.e., ‘numerical data format’)].
Both references (Dion and Kiilerich) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dion and Kiilerich before him/her, to modify the system of Dion with the teaching of Kiilerich in order to implement various file formats [Kiilerich: Paragraph 4].
Claim 31:
Claim 31 is essentially the same as claim 22 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 32:
Claim 32 is essentially the same as claim 23 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 40:
Claim 40 is essentially the same as claim 23 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
14. Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion et al (US 20140006935), in view of Ramarao et al (US 20050091588).
Claim 26:
The combined teachings of Dion and Ramarao suggest wherein the identifying a file type of the source electronic data file includes [Ramarao: Paragraph 37 (“document type definition (DTD) tables 34, an expression list table 36, a template list table 38, and various document processor data structures”)]; generate instructions for displaying a visual indicator for indicating that the file type associated with the source electronic data file is to be determined [Ramarao: Paragraphs 74 and 102 (“As mentioned above, expressions may generally include a hierarchical list of node identifiers that are to be matched to node identifiers in the document. Thus, various expressions may have portions in common (particularly, expression nodes that are higher in the hierarchy (that is closer to the root), may be the same for various expressions).”)]; and receive a file type identifier associated with the source electronic data file [Ramarao: Paragraphs 85 and 102 (“Generally, the parsed content tables 39B may comprise tables for various types of document content, with pointers linking the information to various nodes”)].
Both references (Dion and Ramarao) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dion and Ramarao before him/her, to modify the system of Dion with the teaching of Ramarao in order to indicate file types and file type indicators [Ramarao: Paragraphs 37, 74, 85 and 102].
Claim 35:
Claim 35 is essentially the same as claim 26 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
15. Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion et al (US 20140006935), in view of Luo (US 20080140705).
Claim 29:
The combined teachings of Dion and Luo suggest receiving a request to delete the source electronic data file [Luo: Paragraphs 4 and 69 (“A line of data to be modified in a text file database is simply inserted, deleted or updated by direct user action in a text editor, from a simple script program or an advanced user interface program. If the data in a relational database is to be modified, this can be easily done by an insert, delete or update command in a query language such as SQL”)]; detecting that a transformed electronic data file is associated with the source electronic data file; and deleting the source electronic data file and the transformed electronic data file [Luo: Paragraph 21 (“he update action becomes particularly difficult if it involves deletion or insertion of element nodes such that the structure of the transformed XML document changes and the software engine for updating the source nodes relies on mirrored node positions between the source and transformed document to link them”)] [Luo: Paragraph 157 (“For example, re-focusing the screen cursor onto the node which last had the focus, or re-positioning a scrollbar of which position is defined by a node as before an updating action and re-transformation (provided that is it has not been deleted).”)].
Both references (Dion and Luo) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dion and Luo before him/her, to modify the system of Dion with the teaching of Luo in order to allow data deletion in the data transformation process [Luo: Paragraphs 4, 21, 69 and 157].
Claim 38:
Claim 38 is essentially the same as claim 29 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [Hung D. Le], whose telephone number is [571-270-1404]. The examiner can normally be communicated on [Monday to Friday: 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on [571-272-4080]. 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, contact [800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000].
Hung Le
04/16/2026
/HUNG D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights