DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 10/03/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection is addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner has been unable to locate prior art that reasonably, either singularly or in combination with cited references, would result a proper rejection that would have anticipated or made obvious the subject matter claimed in claims 2, 10 and 18 including all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively and any intervening claims with proper motivation at or before the time it was effectively filed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mueller (US 2021/0149898 A1) hereinafter “Mueller.”
Regarding Claim 1, Mueller teaches A computer system (Mueller: paragraph 0296 & Fig. 6, computing system) for restructuring a structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, transforming or restructuring of data), the computer system comprising:
processor-readable memory (Mueller: paragraph 0299 & Fig. 6, storage; see also paragraph 0042 & Fig. 2, relational data or table) storing:
a schema (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, relational schema; see also paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2), wherein the schema specifies fields including at least one contingently-required field (Mueller: paragraphs 0054-0057, search definitions based on the relational schema); and
the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0049-0054 & Fig. 3A, data for transformation or restructuring; see also paragraphs 0098 & Fig. 3B); and
at least one processor (Mueller: paragraph 0297 & Fig. 6, processor) configured to:
retrieve the schema and the structured payload from the processor-readable memory (Mueller: paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2, obtain relational data and schema);
evaluate, for each contingently-required field in the schema (Mueller: paragraphs 0043 & 0045, dependencies which can include references, annotations, links, foreign keys, or other connections between the relational objects which define the structure, see also paragraphs 0054-0057, search definitions based on the relational schema), whether a respective condition in the schema is either satisfied or unsatisfied by content in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0030-0031, 0037 & 0054, transformation criteria to generate restructured data based on data values in the relational data);
responsive to a respective condition being satisfied, add the contingently-required field to a list of required fields (Mueller: paragraph 0073, fields in the projection list of the primary search definition can be added to the projection list of the upper search definition);
responsive to a respective condition being unsatisfied, add the contingently-required field to a list of removed fields (Mueller: paragraphs 0037 & 0271, sanitation criteria to sanitize or clean data values or invalid field values); and
generate a restructured payload (Mueller: paragraph 0093 & Fig. 3A, generate transformed data) by:
adding to the structured payload all fields in the list of required fields that are missing (Mueller: paragraph 0057, field can be added to a projection list for the object); and
removing from the structured payload all fields in the list of removed fields that are present (Mueller: paragraphs 0055 & 0092, removing unnecessary fields from the search definition).
Regarding Claim 3, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a predetermined other field being present in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0025 and 0055, additional fields in the data).
Regarding Claim 4, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a value of a predetermined other field in the structured payload satisfying a value condition (Mueller: paragraphs 0077-0086, values or results of each field).
Regarding Claim 5, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches requesting, in respect of each field in the list of required fields that is missing, a corresponding value (Mueller: paragraphs 0052, data values with incorrect data);
receiving each corresponding value (Mueller: paragraph 0052, analyzing the data values in the relational data set and correcting some or all of the values); and
inserting, into the structured payload, each field in the list of required fields that is missing along with the corresponding value (Mueller: paragraph 0052, data values with incorrected data can have the data corrected).
Regarding Claim 6, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the requesting and receiving are conducted of and from a user via a user interface (Mueller: paragraph 0023, users through a user interface).
Regarding Claim 7, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the requesting and receiving are conducted of and from an application via an application programming interface (API) (Mueller: paragraph 0023, system through API).
Regarding Claim 8, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches add all non-contingently-required fields specified in the schema to the list of required fields (Mueller: paragraph 0057, For each field in the relational object (e.g. column of the table), the field can be added to a projection list for the object).
Regarding Claim 9, Mueller teaches A computer-implemented method of restructuring a structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, transforming or restructuring of data), wherein a schema (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, relational schema; see also paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2) for the structured payload specifies fields including at least one contingently-required field (Mueller: paragraphs 0043 & 0045, dependencies which can include references, annotations, links, foreign keys, or other connections between the relational objects which define the structure, see also paragraphs 0054-0057, search definitions based on the relational schema), the method comprising:
retrieving the schema and the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2, obtain relational data and schema) from processor-readable memory (Mueller: paragraph 0299 & Fig. 6, storage; see also paragraph 0042 & Fig. 2, relational data or table);
evaluating, for each contingently-required field in the schema, whether a respective condition in the schema is either satisfied or unsatisfied by content in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0030-0031, 0037 & 0054, transformation criteria to generate restructured data based on data values in the relational data);
responsive to a respective condition being satisfied, adding the contingently-required field to a list of required fields (Mueller: paragraph 0073, fields in the projection list of the primary search definition can be added to the projection list of the upper search definition);
responsive to a respective condition being unsatisfied, adding the contingently-required field to a list of removed fields (Mueller: paragraphs 0037 & 0271, sanitation criteria to sanitize or clean data values or invalid field values); and
generating a restructured payload (Mueller: paragraph 0093 & Fig. 3A, generate transformed data) by:
adding to the structured payload all fields in the list of required fields that are missing (Mueller: paragraph 0057, field can be added to a projection list for the object); and
removing from the structured payload all fields in the list of removed fields that are present (Mueller: paragraphs 0055 & 0092, removing unnecessary fields from the search definition).
Regarding Claim 11, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a predetermined other field being present in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0025 and 0055, additional fields in the data).
Regarding Claim 12, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a value of a predetermined other field in the structured payload satisfying a value condition (Mueller: paragraphs 0077-0086, values or results of each field).
Regarding Claim 13, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches requesting, in respect of each field in the list of required fields that is missing, a corresponding value (Mueller: paragraphs 0052, data values with incorrect data);
receiving each corresponding value (Mueller: paragraph 0052, analyzing the data values in the relational data set and correcting some or all of the values); and
inserting, into the structured payload, each field in the list of required fields that is missing along with the corresponding value (Mueller: paragraph 0052, data values with incorrected data can have the data corrected).
Regarding Claim 14, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the requesting and receiving are conducted of and from a user via a user interface (Mueller: paragraph 0023, users through a user interface).
Regarding Claim 15, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the requesting and receiving are conducted of and from an application via an application programming interface (API) (Mueller: paragraph 0023, system through API).
Regarding Claim 16, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches adding all non-contingently-required fields specified in the schema to the list of required fields(Mueller: paragraph 0057, For each field in the relational object (e.g. column of the table), the field can be added to a projection list for the object).
Regarding Claim 17, Mueller teaches A non-transitory processor-readable medium embodying a computer program that is executable by at least one processor for restructuring a structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, transforming or restructuring of data), wherein a schema (Mueller: paragraphs 0051-0054 & Fig. 3A, relational schema; see also paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2) for the structured payload specifies fields including at least one contingently-required field (Mueller: paragraphs 0043 & 0045, dependencies which can include references, annotations, links, foreign keys, or other connections between the relational objects which define the structure, see also paragraphs 0054-0057, search definitions based on the relational schema), the computer program comprising:
computer program code for retrieving the schema and the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0042-0043 & Fig. 2, obtain relational data and schema) from processor-readable memory (Mueller: paragraph 0299 & Fig. 6, storage; see also paragraph 0042 & Fig. 2, relational data or table);
computer program code for evaluating, for each contingently-required field in the schema, whether a respective condition in the schema is either satisfied or unsatisfied by content in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0030-0031, 0037 & 0054, transformation criteria to generate restructured data based on data values in the relational data);
computer program code for responsive to a respective condition being satisfied, adding the contingently-required field to a list of required fields (Mueller: paragraph 0073, fields in the projection list of the primary search definition can be added to the projection list of the upper search definition);
computer program code for responsive to a respective condition being unsatisfied, adding the contingently-required field to a list of removed fields (Mueller: paragraphs 0037 & 0271, sanitation criteria to sanitize or clean data values or invalid field values); and
computer program code for generating a restructured payload (Mueller: paragraph 0093 & Fig. 3A, generate transformed data) including:
computer program code for adding to the structured payload all fields in the list of required fields that are missing (Mueller: paragraph 0057, field can be added to a projection list for the object); and
computer program code for removing from the structured payload all fields in the list of removed fields that are present (Mueller: paragraphs 0055 & 0092, removing unnecessary fields from the search definition).
Regarding Claim 19, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein one or more respective condition comprises: a predetermined other field being present in the structured payload (Mueller: paragraphs 0025 and 0055, additional fields in the data).
Regarding Claim 20, Mueller teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a value of a predetermined other field in the structured payload satisfying a value condition (Mueller: paragraphs 0077-0086, values or results of each field).
Response to Amendment
In view of the terminal disclaimer filed 10/03/2025, previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025:
a) Mueller is unrelated to transforming or restructuring data and is directed to data access and/or reduce data redundancy in a data set (pages 7-8).
b) Mueller alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest that restructuring is based on a schema that specifies fields including at least one contingently-required field since Mueller restructures relational database tables based on functional dependencies between the fields in the tables, and the functional dependencies are not based on an actual stored scheme that specifies at least one contingently-required field (pages 8-11)
Examiner's response:
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding argument a), in response to applicant's argument that Mueller is directed to accessing data and/or reduce data redundancy in a data set instead of transforming or restructuring data, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes although Mueller may be directed to reducing data redundancy as argued, Mueller nonetheless teaches a transformation criteria apparatus for transforming a data set including restructuring, altering and reformatting based on a functional dependency as previously presented (Mueller: paragraphs 0037, 0054, Figs. 3C & 4B) therefore similarly teaching the claimed computer system for transforming or restructuring data.
Regarding argument b), Examiner first notes paragraphs 0022-0023 & 0108-0111 of Mueller were not referenced or relied upon in the previous office to teach a contingently-required field as argued. Applicant has referenced other embodiments or inventive concepts in the remarks (“potential functional dependency”) and relied on those specific passages to argue a contingently-required field is not taught by the prior art without addressing the specific paragraphs referenced in the previous office action.
As described in the instant specification, a contingently-required field can be specified in the JSON document in the event that an evaluation as to whether the condition(s) thereof are satisfied by content in the JSON document. For example, the condition in the BuildingFootage field reflects a business requirement that requires the JSON document to include a BuildingFootage field only when the ProductType field of the JSON document has a value of BusinessOwnerPolicy (instant specification, paragraphs 0034, 0036 & 0054). Therefore, Examiner has interpreted the claim to simply teach any additional data or field that is dependent on any other particular fields or values as a contingently-required field according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. That being stated, as previously presented, Mueller teaches the relational data can include a structure or schema for storing records and one or more dependencies which can include references, annotations, links, foreign keys, or other connections between the relational objects which define the structure (Mueller: paragraph 0043). A search model including dependencies, references, links, annotations, projections, or the like with other of the search definitions, which can be based on the relational data dependencies (Mueller: paragraph 0045). Mueller further teaches restructuring the relational data set can include determining one or more functional dependencies between data fields in the relational data set, and generating new relational objects in the relational data schema based on the determined functional dependencies. The functional dependencies can be determined, in whole or in part, based on one or more dependency criteria. Further, the restructured relational data structure or schema can be instantiated, such as in a database, and repopulated with the data values (Mueller: paragraph 0054). Since Mueller teaches generating or transforming data based on dependency criteria and search model information that is relied upon or dependent on additional data or values, Mueller similarly teaches contingently-required fields in the schema or model to evaluate a respective condition.
Therefore the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 469-295-9193. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/SYED ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463