DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to communication filed July 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are canceled by preliminary amendment. Claims 21-44 are pending in this application and being examined on the merits.
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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/002,359 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/002,359 anticipate claims 21-44 of the present application. For example, claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19/002,359 teach the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 37 as follows: Claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19/002,359 recite “transmitting the source data from the staging database to a working database; segmenting the source data into one or more datasets within the working database based on one or more data patterns received from a user device associated with a user.” Claims 21, 29 and 37 of the present application recite “receiving at a working database, by at least one processor of a server, source data from a data source, the source data having a source data format; storing the source data in the working database in the source data format; segmenting the identified data into one or more datasets within the working database based on one or more data patterns received from a user device associated with a user.” It is inherent that data transmitted to a working database and segmented within a working database is received and stored at the working database.
Claims 22, 30, and 38 of the present application are taught by claims 4 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 23, 31, and 39 of the present application are taught by claims 5 and 16 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 24, 32, and 40 are taught by claims 6 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 25, 33, and 41 are taught by claims 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 26, 34, and 42 are taught by claims 10 and 18 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 27, 35, and 43 are taught by claims 3 and 14 of copending Application No. 19/002,359. Claims 28, 36, and 49 are taught by claims 7 and 19 of copending Application No. 19/002,359.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 21, 29, and 37 recite “segment(ing) the identified data” in lines 5, 8, and 7 of the claims, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 30, 35, and 36 recites “The method of claim of 29” in the preamble of the claim. However, claim 29 is a system claim and not a method claim. Therefore, it is unclear as to what method claims 30, 35, and 36 refers. Similarly, claims 31-34 recites “The method of claim 30” in the preamble of the claim. However, as noted above, claim 30 depends on claim 29, which is a system claim.
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.
Claims 21-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambe et al. ( US 2024/0281451 A1) (‘Dambe’) in view of Kapoor et al. (US 9,619,535 B1) (‘Kapoor’).
With respect to claims 21, 29 and 37, Dambe teaches a method, system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions comprising:
first memory storing instructions (paragraphs 76, 86, and 88);
a processor (paragraphs 76 and 86-87) configured to execute the instructions to perform:
receiving at a working database (i.e. staging database 304 or ingestion database 302), by at least one processor of a server, source data from a data source, the source data having a source data format (paragraphs 30-31 and 49-51);
storing the source data in the working database (i.e. staging database 304 or ingestion database 302) in the source data format (paragraphs 30-31 and 49-51);
segmenting the identified data into one or more datasets within the working database (i.e. staging database 304 or ingestion database 302) based on one or more data patterns (Fig.3 paragraph 50-52);
transmitting each dataset of the one or more datasets to an associated consumption database (i.e. standardized-schema database having data domains and associated domain workspaces) (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 32, 51-54); and
receiving queries (paragraph 39).
Dambe does not explicitly teach: segmenting identified data based on data patterns received from a user device associated with a user; receiving a request to query the associated consumption database; executing the query on the associated consumption database to receive a query result including one or more query result data elements from a dataset of the one or more datasets; and returning the query result.
Kapoor teaches segmenting identified data into one or more datasets based on data patterns received from a user device associated with a user (col. 5 lines 50-57; col. 7 lines 34-54; col. 8 lines 5-18);
receiving a request to query the associated consumption database (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 10 lines 19-30);
executing the query on the associated consumption database to receive a query result including one or more query result data elements from a dataset of the one or more datasets (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30); and
returning the query result (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dambe to segment and query data based on data patterns received from a user as taught by Kapoor to enable a user-driven, customized warehousing approach that gathers patterns and allows for the automated identification of more focused data marts for particular situations and provides for automated data warehouse/data mart creation and customization based on usage patterns (Kapoor, abstract). Dambe already teaches subject/domain based sub-layers and thus the modification would entail subject/domain based sub-layers further customized by users/enterprises.
With respect to claims 22, 30, and 38, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the consumption database is in a sub-layer that returns query results (Kapoor, col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 7 lines 15-25; col. 10 lines 19-30) according to a user preference received from a second user device associated with a second user (Kapoor, col. 8 lines 5-18; col. 9 lines 47-57).
With respect to claims 23, 31, and 39, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the second user is the same as the user (Kapoor, col. 8 lines 5-18; col. 9 lines 47-57).
With respect to claims 24, 32, and 40, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein access to the sub-layer is restricted to select users (Dambe, paragraphs 54 and 59).
With respect to claims 25, 33, and 41, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the working database is within the sub-layer (Staging database shows various data domains, such that each domain may be a sub-layer. In an alternative interpretation, standardized-schema database may be the working database while domain workspaces with multiple databases may be consumption database(s). Standardized-schema database has multiple domains or sub-layers.)(Fig. 3, paragraph 51-52).
With respect to claims 26, 34, and 42, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the source data is stored outside of the sub-layer (Dambe, Fig. 3, paragraphs 49-50).
With respect to claims 27, 35, and 43, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the source data is received from an enterprise source (Dambe, paragraphs 30 and 38; Kapoor, col. 3 lines 26-46).
With respect to claims 28, 36, and 44, Dambe in view of Kapoor teaches wherein the working database has restricted access (Access privileges are granted based on roles of user device. In an alternative interpretation, standardized-schema database may be the working database and access may be restricted for the standardized-schema database.) (Dambe, paragraphs 40, 54, 59 and 67; Kapoor, col. 4 lines 41-54).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights