Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/219,398, filed on 5/27/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 18/381,990 1filed 0/19/2023 is now US PAT 12339905 18/381,990 has PRO 63/489,143 filed 03/08/2023
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 161-180 are pending, and claims 1-160 canceled in this application
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment claims 161-180, canceled claims 1-160 filed on 7/7/2025.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/27/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/489,143 filed on 03/08/2023
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
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 161-180 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 161-180 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 161,171,180, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
claims 1-160. (Canceled)
Claim 161,171,180.
A computer system for categorizing data in one or more domains for storage in a database, comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions; and
one or more processors that execute the instructions to
:receive the one or more data domains from a source system, wherein each of the one or more data domains is configured to be distributed between one or more applications and each of the data domains is categorized according to a logical grouping;
store the categorized data for each of the one or more data domains within the database;
further categorize each of the one or more data domains as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, the range of data velocities including a low data velocity, a medium data velocity, and a high data velocity, each data velocity being representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes, the low data velocity corresponding to data changes that occur below a threshold frequency;
decompose the one or more data domains into one or more subdomains; and
store one or more categorizations of the further categorized data within the database”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking categorizes each of the one or more data domains is mere data collection
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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of receiving one or more data domains, store the categorized data , data velocity selected from a range of data velocities , decompose the one or more data domains …….to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 24-25, para 0163-0175 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 24-25, para 0163-0175 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 162,172, further elaborates “wherein the logical grouping of the data domains is based on instruments within the source system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
.
Claim 163,173, further elaborates “wherein the range of data velocities include individual data velocities in the source system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 164,174, further elaborates “wherein at least one of the one or more data domains includes user profile data having low data velocity”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 165,175, further elaborates “wherein the user profile includes information associated with each of the one or more data domains, wherein the information characterizes a specific user”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 166,176, further elaborates “wherein the threshold frequency is a frequency with which the data changes infrequently”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 167,177, further elaborates “wherein the data of each of the one or more data domains includes content is associated with architectural analytics”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 168,178, further elaborates “wherein the architectural analytics identify different patterns of user behavior for assessing decisions of a user”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 169, further elaborates “wherein different patterns of user behavior include recurring behaviors displayed by the user when interacting with the database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
.
Claim 170, 179, further elaborates “wherein the categorization is based on important attributes associated with the further categorized data”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
.
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 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.
Claims 161-180 of US Application No. 19/219,398 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,306,879. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/219,398
US Patent No. 12,306,879
Claim 161,171,180, A computer system for categorizing data in one or more domains for storage in a database, comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions; and
one or more processors that execute the instructions to
:receive the one or more data domains from a source system, wherein each of the one or more data domains is configured to be distributed between one or more applications and each of the data domains is categorized according to a logical grouping;
store the categorized data for each of the one or more data domains within the database;
further categorize each of the one or more data domains as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, the range of data velocities including a low data velocity, a medium data velocity, and a high data velocity, each data velocity being representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes, the low data velocity corresponding to data changes that occur below a threshold frequency;
decompose the one or more data domains into one or more subdomains; and
store one or more categorizations of the further categorized data within the database.
1,8,14,A computer-system for organizational decomposition of organizational units for storage in a database, comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions; and
at least one processor that executes the instructions to:
provide, by the processor, an architectural framework for one or more objects of a data domain, each of the one or more objects being classified into one or more organizational units of the database;
wherein the architectural framework uses a modeling language to provide structured context within the data domain to categorize and display information associated with each of the data domains;
access, by the processor, a graph database that includes nodes and edges as a data model for representing data objects of the data domain according to the architectural framework, wherein:
the nodes are configured to store first-class entities and the edges are configured to store relationships between the first-class entities;
the relationships contain architectural properties of the architectural framework;
classify, by the processor, the one or more organizational units based on architectural analytics related to the architectural framework, the organizational units including one or more characteristics related to the data domains; and
arrange, by the processor, the objects according to administrative and security requirements for the organizational units for decomposition and storage of the organizational units into the database.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,306,879 to arrive at the claims 161-180 of the instant application 19/219,398 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 161,171,180 instant application 19/219,398 “further categorize each of the one or more data domains as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, the range of data velocities including a low data velocity, a medium data velocity, and a high data velocity, each data velocity being representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes, the low data velocity corresponding to data changes that occur below a threshold frequency while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,306,879, “data model for representing data objects of the data domain according to the architectural framework, wherein:the nodes are configured to store first-class entities and the edges are configured to store relationships between the first-class” entities is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 19/219,398 claim 161,171,180, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 161,171,180 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1, 14 to arrive at the claims 161,171,180 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claims 161-180 of US Application No. 19/219,398 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 82-100 (filed 5/29/2026) of U.S. application No. 18/382,003. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant US application: 19/219,398
US Patent No. 18/382,003 (5/29/2026)
Claim 161,171,180, A computer system for categorizing data in one or more domains for storage in a database, comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions; and
one or more processors that execute the instructions to
:receive the one or more data domains from a source system, wherein each of the one or more data domains is configured to be distributed between one or more applications and each of the data domains is categorized according to a logical grouping;
store the categorized data for each of the one or more data domains within the database;
further categorize each of the one or more data domains as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, the range of data velocities including a low data velocity, a medium data velocity, and a high data velocity, each data velocity being representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes, the low data velocity corresponding to data changes that occur below a threshold frequency;
decompose the one or more data domains into one or more subdomains; and
store one or more categorizations of the further categorized data within the database.
Claim 82,91,100, A computer-system directed to an architectural meta-model for an architectural graph database for an enterprise, comprising:
a storage device that stores instructions;
at least one processor that executes the instructions to:
categorize architectural information across one or more data domains according to an architectural framework of the graph database, wherein :the architectural information comprises structure and design of the graph database; and
the architectural framework comprises architectural data corresponding to the one or more data domains, and comprises a business level, an application level, a data level and a technology level;
construct rules, constraints, and relationships corresponding to the one or more data domains using the architectural meta- model of the architectural framework, wherein the architectural meta-model documents component types of the enterprise from an architecture viewpoint;
decompose one or more organizational units from the one or more data domains for analysis;
analyze components of the one or more data domains to derive the architectural information for the one or more data domains;
derive the architectural information for the one or more data domains based on the analysis;
trigger, through automatic execution of a program, an application associated with the architectural meta-model using a process model to identify the constructed rules, constraints, and decisions for the graph database; and an output device configured to display the graph database.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 82,91,100 (5/29/2026) of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/382,003 to arrive at the claims 161-180 of the instant application 19/219,398 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 161,171,180 instant application 19/219,398 further categorize each of the one or more data domains as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, each representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes while claim 82,91,100 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/382,003, trigger, through automatic execution of a program, an application associated with the architectural meta-model using a process model to identify the constructed rules, constraints, and decisions for the graph database; and an output device configured to display the graph database., is absent from instant application 19/219,398 claim 161,171,180, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of (co-pending 18/382,003) claims 82,91,100 to arrive at the claims 161,171,180 of the instant application (19/219,398 ) because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 161-180 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salama et al., (hereafter Salama), US Pub. No. 2015/0100495 published Apr, 2015 in view of Jones et al., (hereafter Jones), US Pub. No. 2022/0383301 published Dec 2022
claims 1-160. (Canceled)
As to Claim 161,171,180. (New) A computer system for categorizing data in one or more domains for storage in a database, comprising: (Salama: Abstract, fig 1 – Salama teaches business entities including categorizing account data, customer data, transaction data as detailed in fig 1, fig 8 element 144A-144C, categorizing account data corresponds to Salama’s fig 8, element 144A-144C)
PNG
media_image1.png
179
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a storage device that stores instructions (Salama: 0008, 0056,0059 fig 2 – Salama teaches computer system defining both hardware and software including computer readable medium stored computer programs and set of instructions and like); and
PNG
media_image2.png
293
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“one or more processors that execute the instructions to” (Salama: fig 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
282
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
:”receive the one or more data domains from a source system, wherein each of the one or more data domains is configured to be distributed between one or more applications and each of the data domains is categorized according to a logical grouping” (Salama: fig 2, fig 8, 0028,0030,0116-0118 – Salama teaches business entity that including financial accounts, transactions security, deposit, withdrawal of funds stored in the data repository in a distributed computer environment and data domains corresponds to Salama’s fig 8 customer data, transaction data, account data and like);
PNG
media_image4.png
209
182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“store the categorized data for each of the one or more data domains within the database” (Salama: fig 1, fig 8 – Salama teaches data repository element 144 having customer data, account data, transaction data stored in the data repository) ;
“further categorize each of the one or more data domains (Salama: fig 1 – Salama teaches customer data, account data, transaction data as part of business entity element 160 corresponds to categorize one or more data domains) as having a data velocity selected from a range of data velocities, the range of data velocities including a low data velocity, a medium data velocity, and a high data velocity, each data velocity being representative of a frequency with which data of the data domain changes, the low data velocity corresponding to data changes that occur below a threshold frequency” (Salama: fig 1, fig 6, fig 8 – 0087-0089 – Salama teaches user accounts, and respective transaction account in relation to the conditions associated with business entity element 160 particularly representing not only frequency of use, frequency of use meets defined threshold set to the respective transaction account(s), but also associated with “Low”, “Medium”, “high” for the tokenized transaction account(s) as detailed in fig6 is identical to instant specification drawing fig 2 data domain;and data velocity corresponds to Salama’s fig 6 “low”, “medium”, “high”
PNG
media_image5.png
204
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“store one or more categorizations of the further categorized data within the database” (Salama: fig 1, fig 8 – Salama teaches categorized data stored in data repository element 144.
It is however, noted that Salama doesn’t disclose “decompose the one or more data domains into one or more subdomains;”, although Salama teaches storing categorized data including customer data, account data, transaction data (Abstract, fig 1, fig 8). On the other hand, Jones disclosed decompose the one or more data domains into one or more subdomains” (Jones: fig 1, fig 2A, fig 3, 0043, 0057-0058,0068 – Jones teaches decomposition engine performs identified data fields for example elements of field data such as name of the employer, postal address, corresponding portions of the data element 208 within decomposed field data element 204, fig 2A, also decomposition engine may perform extract the payment account, account identifiers corresponding message fields as detailed in 0058)
PNG
media_image6.png
225
427
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
225
338
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
148
209
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention real-time content based on decomposed structured data of Jones et al., into providing transaction accounts associated with users of Salama et al., because both Salama, Jones are directed to users transaction data, account data customer data (Salama: fig 1, fig 8; Jones: fig 1, 2A). and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Salama, Jones teaches data repository system of various categories f entity data, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to use decomposition engine of Jones because decomposed field data of respective category data fields particularly determines the values of the transaction data such as payment, direct deposit of funds consistent with the defined business entity threshold, while maintaining consistency in real-time transactions (Jones: Abstract, 0005-0006), thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
As to Claim 162,172, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the logical grouping of the data domains is based on instruments within the source system” (Salama: fig 2, fig 8, 0028,0030)
As to Claim 163,173, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the range of data velocities include individual data velocities in the source system” (Salama: fig 6, 0089-0090).
As to Claim 164,174, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein at least one of the one or more data domains includes user profile data having low data velocity” (Salama: fig 6, element 600 – condition)s) associated with user profile(s), 0090).
As to Claim 165,175, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the user profile includes information associated with each of the one or more data domains, wherein the information characterizes a specific user” (Salama: fig 6, fig 8, 0090, customer data fig 8).
As to Claim 166,176, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the threshold frequency is a frequency with which the data changes infrequently” (Salama: 0089,0091, fig 8, 0084, 0117).
As to Claim 167,177, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the data of each of the one or more data domains includes content is associated with architectural analytics” (Salama: fig 1, fig 3 and Jones: 0043, fig 1, analytical engine element 148).
As to Claim 168,178, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the architectural analytics identify different patterns of user behavior for assessing decisions of a user” (Salama: fig 1, 0084,0100).
As to Claim 169, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein different patterns of user behavior include recurring behaviors displayed by the user when interacting with the database” (Salama: 0084, 0117, fig 8).
As to Claim 170, 179, the combination of Salama, Jones disclosed “wherein the categorization is based on important attributes associated with the further categorized data” (Salama: fig 1, 3B, fig 6 and 8,0064-0065,0097-0098).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2015/0100495
b. US Pub. No. 2022/0383301
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.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights