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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on July 18, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12393608.
Comparing the claims of the current application (19/274,008) with the patented claims (Patent No. 12393608) side by side, it can be seen the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited Patent.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patent. The claim merely omits/add certain limitations. Even though the claims omit some limitations, that does not change the scope of the invention and would perform same functionality.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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. Regarding the claim 1, it recites communicating a request, from a driver node to a metastore manager, for initiating, in association with a data set maintained in a first data store associated with a first data management platform, a first data processing operation, to be performed by the first data management platform, to generate a first processed data set, wherein the first processed data set is stored in the first data store, and wherein a first metadata set corresponding to the first processed data set is stored in a first metastore associated with the first data store, the first metadata set comprising partition metadata indicative of partitioning information associated with the first processed data set; synchronizing, by the metastore manager, metadata between the first metastore and a second metastore associated with a second data management platform; and activating, by the metastore manager, a data processing pipeline that is not communicatively coupled with the first data management platform to cause the data processing pipeline to: access the first processed data set; perform a second data processing operation on the first processed data set to generate a second processed data set; and output the second processed data set.
The claim recited the limitation of “initiating, in association with a data set maintained in a first data store associated with a first data management platform, a first data processing operation, to be performed by the first data management platform, to generate a first processed data set, wherein the first processed data set is stored in the first data store, and wherein a first metadata set corresponding to the first processed data set is stored in a first metastore associated with the first data store, the first metadata set comprising partition metadata indicative of partitioning information associated with the first processed data set” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can mentally initiate an operation to generate information (processed data) which can be memorized. If necessary, user use physical aid such as pencil and paper. Hence, the limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Note that “communicating a request, from a driver node to a metastore manager” can be done with generic computer component, therefore the entire limitation fall under mental process. Similarly, the limitation “perform a second data processing operation on the first processed data set to generate a second processed data set” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally calculate, identify or process second information from first information. Therefore, the performing limitation is a mental process.
The claim recites four additional elements: synchronizing, by the metastore manager, metadata between the first metastore and a second metastore associated with a second data management platform; and activating, by the metastore manager, a data processing pipeline that is not communicatively coupled with the first data management platform to cause the data processing pipeline to: access the first processed data set; and output the second processed data set. The synchronizing step as recited amounts to mere data gathering (store in a second metastore) for use in the processing steps, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, the limitations “activating, by the metastore manager, a data processing pipeline that is not communicatively coupled with the first data management platform to cause the data processing pipeline to: access the first processed data set; and output the second processed data set” is data manipulation which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data processing pipeline is communicatively coupled, via a platform interface, with the second data management platform, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data processing pipeline is communicatively coupled, via a platform interface, with only the second data management platform, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first data processing operation comprises a structured query language (SQL) query on a distributed database associated with at least one of the first data store or a second data store associated with the second metastore, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of obtaining a directed acyclic graph (DAG) corresponding to the first data processing operation; and configuring the first data processing operation in association with the DAG, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of configuring the first data processing operation at least in part by allocating a set of computational resources for the first data processing operation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the second processed data set comprises an output of an artificial intelligence (AI) operation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of metadata management. The claim recites the limitations of the data processing pipeline, to output the second processed data set, is configured to output the second processed data set to a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolatos et al. (Pub. No. : US 20240427911 A1) in the view of Cannon et al. (pub. No. : US 20110282835 A1)
As to clam 1 Apostolatos teaches a method, comprising:
communicating a request, from a driver node to a metadastore manager, for initiating, in association with a data set maintained in a first data store associated with a first data management platform, a first data processing operation, to be performed by the first data management platform, to generate a first processed data set, wherein the first processed data set is stored in the first data store, and wherein a first metadata set corresponding to the first processed data set is stored in a first metastore associated with the first data store (paragraph [0021], [0024]-[0026]: receiving instructions for a data processing pipeline from a client device 112 and requesting that the data pipeline system 150 perform the data processing pipeline, which includes a metadata store 153 which stores metadata of the source datasets 174-1, 174-2, or 174-N and information to define the data pipeline stages 155-1, 155-2, 155-3, and 155-4 to be performed in the data pipeline 154, wherein data pipeline stage may perform data transformations on their input datasets to produce one or more transformed datasets), the first metadata set comprising partition metadata indicative of partitioning information associated with the first processed data set (paragraph [0024]: the metadata store 153 may store one or more datasets (imply there is multiple partition)); and
activating, by the metastore manager, a data processing pipeline that is not communicatively coupled with the first data management platform (paragraphs [0020], [0040]: data pipeline stage may perform data transformations on their input datasets to produce one or more transformed datasets) to cause the data processing pipeline to:
access the first processed data set (paragraph [0038]: The data transformation 214 may be any kind of data transformation, such as a filter, join, numerical transformation etc., and may process one or more source datasets 210 to generate a transformed dataset);
perform a second data processing operation on the first processed data set to generate a second processed data set (paragraph [0040]: Data pipeline 200 may further comprise additional data transformations 216-1 to 216-N, which may optionally follow data transformation 214 and may further transform the transformed dataset output by data transformation 214); and
output the second processed data set (paragraph [0041]: a transformed dataset output by one of the subsequent data transformations 216-1 to 216-N).
Apostolatos does not explicitly disclose but Cannon teaches synchronizing, by the metastore manager, metadata between the first metastore and a second metastore associated with a second data management platform (Paragraphs [0006], [0031]: the first migration manager function 18a receiving (at block 200) a request to migrate metadata and storage management of data objects 8a from the first storage environment 2a to the second storage environment 2b. In response to the request, the second migration manager function 18b copies (at block 202) the first metadata 12a to the second storage environment 2b to incorporate with the second metadata 12b in the second metadata storage media 14b, wherein the first metadata is copied to the second storage environment to incorporate with the second metadata. The first metadata incorporated into the second metadata is modified to indicate first server information used by the second server to communicate with the first server to access the migrated data from the first storage media). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Apostolatos by adding above limitation as taught by Cannon to incorporating the first metadata into the second metadata (see Cannon, abstract).
As to claim 2 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a method according to claim 1. Cannon teaches wherein the data processing pipeline is communicatively coupled, via a platform interface, with the second data management platform (paragraph [0019]).
As to claim 3 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a method according to claim 1. Cannon teaches wherein the data processing pipeline is communicatively coupled, via a platform interface, with only the second data management platform (paragraph [0019]).
As to claim 6 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a method according to claim 1. Apostolatos teaches configuring the first data processing operation at least in part by allocating a set of computational resources for the first data processing operation (paragraph [0020]).
As to claim 7 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a method according to claim 1. Apostolatos teaches wherein the second processed data set comprises an output of an artificial intelligence (AI) operation (paragraph [0040]).
As to claim 8 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a method according to claim 1. Apostolatos teaches the data processing pipeline, to output the second processed data set, is configured to output the second processed data set to a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform (paragraph [0021]-[0021]).
As to claims 9, 12-16, 18, 20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-3, 6-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-3, 6-8 above.
As to claim 10 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 9. Cannon teaches wherein the data processing pipeline is configured to obtain the first processed data set via a platform interface that connects the data processing pipeline with only the second data management platform (paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 17 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a system according to claim 14. Cannon teaches a platform interface that communicatively couples the first data management platform with the second data management platform (paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 19 Apostolatos together with Cannon teaches a system according to claim 14. Apostolatos teaches wherein the second data management platform comprises a metastore manager configured to manage access, by the data processing pipeline, to the first data store (paragraph [0031]).
Claims 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolatos and Cannon in the view of Das et al. (Patent No. : US 11941014 B1)
As to claim 4 all of the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Apostolatos and Cannon do not explicitly disclose but Das teaches wherein the first data processing operation comprises a structured query language (SQL) query on a distributed database associated with at least one of the first data store or a second data store associated with the second metastore (Column 9 lines 12: Structured Query Language (SQL)). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Apostolatos and Cannon by adding above limitation as taught by Das to improving query performance (Das, Column 4 lines 17-18).
As to claim 5 Apostolatos together with Cannon and Das teaches a method according to claim 1. Das teaches obtaining a directed acyclic graph (DAG) corresponding to the first data processing operation and configuring the first data processing operation in association with the DAG (Column 16 lines 54-55: using a directed acyclic graph (DAG) or other tree-like data structure).
As to claim 11 Apostolatos together with Cannon and Das teaches a method according to claim 9. Das teaches wherein the first data processing operation comprises a structured query language (SQL) query on a distributed database associated with at least one of the first data store or a second data store associated with the second metastore (Das, Column 4 lines 17-18).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as 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 the 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 its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights