CTNF 19/217,361 CTNF 77273 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is responsive to the application filed on May 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending at the time of examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 31, 2011 was considered by the examiner. See attached PTO-form 1449. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. (Step 1) The claim recites the following limitations that appear to recite an abstract idea: (Step 2A1-Judicial Exception) The limitation of “r eceiving, from a data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data model, the hierarchical data model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships for a distributed system; determining, by providing the first data element as input to the hierarchical data model, a definition of a second data element within the hierarchical data model; and determining, based at least in part on the first data element and the definition of the second data element, that the received data conforms to the hierarchical data model ”, as drafted, this recites an abstract idea as a mental process and/or a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. This recites an evaluation or judgement that can be done mentally, because one can mentally make the claimed determination by providing the first data element as input to the hierarchical data model, a definition of a second data element within the hierarchical data model…determination based on the first data element and the definition of the second data element to confirms the hierarchical data model as claim. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually perform the process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or manually performed, 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. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: That the method is performed "by a receiving device” which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. " receiving … data comprising first data element and “the received data conforms to the hierarchical data model” recite i nsignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g); as well as mere data outputting without any details. These do not provide integration into a practical application. Electronic retrieval and storage of various information – a type of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and output). 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 do not provide significantly more. With respect to the "receiving" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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 thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. With respect to the “sending” this is also WURC as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting [information], OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible. The claim is directed to the abstract idea of replacing search result terms with terms associated with a user without significantly more. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,232 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are directed to Instant application Patent (‘232) A method comprising: receiving, by a receiving device, data comprising at least a first data element; receiving, from a data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data model, the hierarchical data model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships for a distributed system; determining, by providing the first data element as input to the hierarchical data model, a definition of a second data element within the hierarchical data model; and determining, based at least in part on the first data element and the definition of the second data element, that the received data conforms to the hierarchical data model. 9. A method, comprising: receiving, by a target system and from a transmitting system, a data structure comprising a plurality of data elements; receiving, from a data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data design model, the hierarchical data design model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships for a distributed system; determining that a first data element in the hierarchical data design model is associated with a second data element in the data structure; receiving, from the hierarchical data design model, a definition of the first data element; determining, based at least in part on the first data element and the second data element in the data structure, that the received data structure conforms to the hierarchical data design model; and based at least in part on determining that the received data structure conforms to the hierarchical data design model, storing the received data structure on the target system. 9. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to transmit data having a first element to a second computing device; receiving, from a data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships; determining, within the hierarchical data model, a second element associated with the first element in the data to be transmitted; receiving a definition of the second element from the hierarchical data model; and determining, based at least in part on the first element and the definition of the second element, that the data to be transmitted conforms to the hierarchical data model. A system, comprising: a data design system storing a hierarchical data design model; and a first computing device comprising at least one processor and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing device to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a first computing device and from a transmitting system, a data structure comprising a plurality of data elements; receiving, from the data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data design model, the hierarchical data design model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships for a distributed system; determining that a first data element in the hierarchical data design model is associated with a second data element in the data structure; receiving, from the hierarchical data design model, a definition of the first data element; determining, based at least in part on the first data element and the second data element in the data structure, that the received data structure conforms to the hierarchical data design model; and based at least in part on determining that the received data structure conforms to the hierarchical data design model, storing the received data structure on the first computing device. After analyzing the language claim of the claims, it is clear that claims 1-20 of the instant application are merely an obvious variation of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,232. While claims 1-20 of the instant application is slightly broader than claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,232, this difference is not enough to distinguish the two instant application claims and the patent claims. With respect to the language and the disclosure of the instant application not only fail to distinguish it from the Patent No. 12,314,232, but indicate that it is merely a subset of the Patent No. 12,314,232. These differenc1-20 of the instant application are valid. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarty et al. (US Patent No. 8,938,711) (hereinafter “McCarty”) in view of Sayyarrodsari et al. (US 2007/0239742 A1) (hereinafter “Sayyarrodsari”) . As per claim 1, McCarty discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a receiving device, data comprising at least a first data element ( Fig. 2, # 204, receiving user input creating a model of healthcare service ). McCarty does not explicitly teach, but Sayyarrodsari teaches receiving, from a data design system, at least a portion of a hierarchical data model ( para. 0109, as industrial hierarchical) , the hierarchical data model defining a shared inventory of common data element definitions and relationships for a distributed system ( para. 0083, as user can select a model template within the hierarchical schema); determining, by providing the first data element as input to the hierarchical data model, a definition of a second data element within the hierarchical data model ( para. 0083, as selection of an “automotive” industry may prompt the user to select among several automotive sub-industries” ; determining, based at least in part on the first data element and the definition of the second data element, that the received data conforms to the hierarchical data model (para. 0088, allows the user to customize the templates by mapping each data item specified by the model template; para. 0090, 0114) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of McCarty to implement the above steps as taught by Sayyarrodsari because it would enable the different levels of industrial enterprise business can select and generate a data structure model to be relevant to their business objective to be resolved, as suggested by Sayyarrodsari (para. 0065, 0118). As per claim 2, McCarty further teaches wherein receiving at least a portion of the hierarchical data model comprises: identifying the first data element within the hierarchical data model by determining that a first element name of the first data element matches a second element name of the second data element in the hierarchical data model (para. 0043). As per claim 3, McCarty further teaches wherein receiving at least a portion of the hierarchical data model comprises receiving, from the hierarchical data model: a first unique identifier of the first data element; a first data type of the first data element; and a first dependency of the first data element (para. 0024). As per claim 4, McCarty further teaches wherein determining that the received data conforms to the hierarchical data model comprises: verifying that the second data element of the hierarchical data model has the first unique identifier, the first data type, and the first dependency (para. 0040). As per claim 5, McCarty further teaches wherein the received data comprises at least one of: a data structure within a software program component; an application program interface (API); or a database (Fig. 1; Fig. 2, #202). As per claim 6, McCarty further teaches determining a first hierarchical level of the first data element within the hierarchical data model; determining a second hierarchical level of the second data element within the hierarchical data model; and determining that the first hierarchical level matches the second hierarchical level (Fig. 3, # 302). As per claim 7, McCarty further teaches the data design system comprises a computer server operating on a private secure computer network; the receiving device comprises a customer mobile device operating on an unsecure computer network (Fig. 9). As per claim 8, McCarty further teaches determining that a first attribute of the first data element does not match a second attribute of the second data element; and preventing a usage of the received data on the receiving device, based at least in part on determining that the first attribute of the first data element does not match the second attribute of the second data element (para. 0088). As per claims 9 and 15, these independent claims recite several elements that are similar to the elements recited in claim 1, except in the context of a system, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. As per claim 10, McCarty further teaches rendering a graphical representation of the hierarchical data model, in a first user interface window of a software development environment; and receiving a graphical representation of a data design, in a second user interface window of the software development environment, wherein receiving the request to transmit the data comprises receiving, via the software development environment, a drag-and-drop command dragging (col. 9, lines 4-15). As per claims 11-14, 16-20 have similar limitations as recited in claims 2-8; therefore, they are rejected under the same subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBBIE M LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4111. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00. 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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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. /DEBBIE M LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168 May 15, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 9 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 10 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 11 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 12 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 13 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 14 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 15 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 16 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 17 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/217,361 Page 18 Art Unit: 2168
Prosecution Insights