DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed 6 July 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 6 July 2026, none of the claims are amended.
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 .
Priority
This Application is a Continuation of US Application 18/205,450 filed 2 June 2023, now US Patent No 12,361,023.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 6 July 2026 has been approved.
Double Patenting
The rejection of claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,023 in view of US PGPub 2020/0026711 to Blom et al is withdrawn as necessitated by the filling of the Terminal Disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components, wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system; executing the plurality of enrichment groups in parallel to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application; and transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components; and executing the plurality of enrichment groups to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person grouping components, for example tasks, based on time to complete the task. Then the tasks are completed to transform the metadata. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites an apparatus for data management, comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: dynamically partition a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components, wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system; execute the plurality of enrichment groups in parallel to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application; and transmit, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components; and executing the plurality of enrichment groups to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person grouping components, for example tasks, based on time to complete the task. Then the tasks are completed to transform the metadata. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, instructions, a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, instructions, a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data management, the code comprising instructions executable by at least one processor to: dynamically partition a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components, wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system; execute the plurality of enrichment groups in parallel to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application; and transmit, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components; and executing the plurality of enrichment groups to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person grouping components, for example tasks, based on time to complete the task. Then the tasks are completed to transform the metadata. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a medium, code, a processor, a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a medium, code, a processor, a first application, a second application, a destination computing environment, a source computing environment and a data management system. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the additional element of executing the groups in parallel, this concept is a result of the process being performed in a computer environment. The additional elements of wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system and the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional element of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components. This element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 ais directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each of the claims is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each of the claims are directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 7, 9, 14 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional elements of each of the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Comments - 35 USC § 101
It is noted that Paragraph [0017] describes the improvement. The paragraph states that the improvement is provided by filtering and enriching data records at the source (e.g., within the file source computing environment) and that the source may proactively enrich the data records according to a set of declarative enrichment definitions provided by the destination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record are US PGPub 2020/0026711 to Blom; US PGPub 2017/0344592 to Sundaram; and US PGPub 2022/0113949 to Geoffroy.
Blom et al teaches receiving, from a first application in a destination computing environment [data warehouse] of a data management system, a set of enrichment definitions for metadata synchronization between the first application in the destination computing environment and a second application in a source computing environment [source] of the data management system (see [0032]-[0034] – The rules are sent from the data warehouse to the MDW compiler); generating a plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application in the source computing environment (see [0057] and [0058] – The MDW runtime system receives data from one or more networked data sources. In this example, the MDW runtime system maintains (e.g., updates the data of) a data warehouse that has already been initialized by preparing additional source data to be stored in the data warehouse.); transforming the plurality of data records based at least in part on using a plurality of data enrichment components to modify the plurality of data records according to the set of enrichment definitions provided by the first application in the destination computing environment (see [0051] and [0058] – The MDW compiler uses the values of the parameters specified in the metadata files to generate the application that transforms the source data into the transformed data for storage in the data warehouse. The values of the parameters specify exactly what operations each of the dataflow graphs generated by the MDW compiler perform (e.g., how each graph transforms the source data into transformed data). The MDW runtime system transforms the source data into transformed data.), wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are dynamically partitioned into enrichment groups that execute in parallel (see [0087] – Graph components may be selected to support parallel processing.); and transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components (see Fig 6 and Fig 8 – store transformed data in data warehouse).
Sundaram teaches data integration between disparate data sources, including the further limitations of transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records (see [0005]; [0077]; [0078]; and [0212]).
Geoffroy teaches enabling enrichments of metadata by applying geographic and time enrichments.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the limitations of “dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components, wherein the plurality of data enrichment components are associated with metadata synchronization between a first application in a destination computing environment of a data management system and a second application in a source computing environment of the data management system; executing the plurality of enrichment groups in parallel to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, the plurality of data records corresponding to metadata changes associated with the second application; and transmitting, via one or more data streams between the first application and the second application, at least a subset of the plurality of data records transformed by the plurality of data enrichment components” found in each of the independent claims in combination with the other claimed limitations.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Referring to Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 of the Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. The limitations of dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies associated with the plurality of data enrichment components; and executing the plurality of enrichment groups to transform a plurality of data records according to a set of enrichment definitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. The Applicant argues that the high-level characterization ignores the specific technical limitations actually recited in the claims, including dynamically partitioning data enrichment components based on measured latencies, executing enrichment groups in parallel to transform data records, and transmitting transformed records via data streams between applications in different computing environments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that any recited limitations have been ignored. The claim fails to mention any measuring of latencies. The claim recites that a decision is being made based on the respective latencies (dynamically partitioning a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based at least in part on respective latencies.). The concepts of executing in parallel and transmitting have been considered as additional elements in Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B. The Applicant further argues that “For example, the human mind is not equipped to dynamically partition a plurality of data enrichment components into a plurality of enrichment groups based on respective latencies – and then execute those groups in parallel to transform data records in real-time, because these processes involve computer-based measurement of processing times, algorithmic assignment of components to groups, and coordinated parallel execution across computing infrastructure. For the reasons stated above in the rejection and the response to the arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to Step 2A, prong 1, at least one limitation has to be able to be performed within the human mind, not every limitation. Furthermore, a human mind does have the capability to group components based on a measured metric and then execute those components on data records.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of the Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite features that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The Applicant points to paragraph [0017] of the Specification and states that the Examiner stated that the paragraph recites the improvement. The Examiner agrees, however, this improvement recited in paragraph [0017] in not realized by the claimed limitations. The paragraph states that the improvement in realized by filtering and enriching data at the source. The paragraph states “The source may proactively enrich the data records according to a set of declarative enrichment definitions provided by the destination.” The current independent claims do not recite either of these features.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The Applicant argues the specified ordered combination of the limitations represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provides an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arrangement as stated is partitioning a group of components based on latencies, then transforming the data records and then transmitting transformed data records. The technical arrangement in paragraphs [0078]-[0081] discusses the source receiving enrichment definitions and grouping slow components with slow components and fast with fast. The claims do not claim the details of paragraphs [0078]-[0081].
Therefore, the 101 rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights