DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on September 2, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 16 and 20 recite the following features:
receive a new data set to be loaded in a remote computing environment, which impacts an existing data set stored in the remote computing environment - Receiving data is considered extra solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05.
determine a schema identifying how the new data set is to be stored – Identifying how data should be stored is something that may be performed in the mind or with help of pen and paper.
use the schema to identify one or more changes to a current representation of the data set stored in the remote computing environment, the identified one or more changes replacing information in the current representation of the data – Identifying changes based on if old data was changed is something that may be performed in the mind.
drop or ignore unchanged data from the new data set to avoid processing the unchanged data in the remote computing environment – Not processing something may be considered as extra solution activity. It may also be considered a mental process based on just looking at particular data and choosing not to do anything with the data.
store the replaced information in a data store persisting a previous representation of the data set – Storing data is considered extra solution activity. It could also be considered as a well-known, routine and conventional functionality.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite hardware elements such as a memory, a processor, etc. However, the hardware elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information.
As to dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-19, these claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the Claims recite more details of
mentally processing graph data, which is additional recitations of the abstract idea identified above.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,430,315. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘315 Patent anticipates the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031).
Claims 1, 16 and 20: discloses a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
receive a new data set to be loaded in a remote computing environment, which impacts an existing data set stored in the remote computing environment (Col 13 ln 9-20). [See at least migrating data to a target database.]
determine a schema identifying how the new data set is to be stored (Col 7 ln 7-12). [See at least identifying how the migrated date will be stored.]
use the schema to identify one or more changes to a current representation of the data set stored in the remote computing environment, the identified one or more changes replacing information in the current representation of the data (Col 7 ln 7-12). [See at least “ensuring that data changes to the source database 130A1 that occur during the migration process are automatically migrated to the target database data 130A2 and/or the target schema 130B.”]
drop or ignore unchanged data from the new data set to avoid processing the unchanged data in the remote computing environment (Col 7 ln 32-50, Col 13 ln 9-20). [See at least that “the migration manager 160B can continue to migrate changes made to the source database 130A1 to the target database 130A2.”]
store the replaced information in a data store persisting a previous representation of the data set (Col 13 ln 9-20).
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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Copper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0340533).
Claims 2 and 17: Wilton discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 16 above, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose store other information in the new data set that is determined, using the schema, to be invalid data, to a second data store persisting an invalid data set associated with the data set.
However, Copper [Fig. 4A, 0037] discloses segregating clean data and invalid data into separate datasets.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Copper. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to train data for both valid and invalid data.
Claims 3-5, 8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Gilder et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0040182).
Claims 3 and 18: Wilton discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 16 above, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose store the identified one or more changes to a third data store persisting the current representation and apply the one or more changes to the current representation to change the replaced information.
However, Gilder [0116] states, “The comparison step 1114 facilitates indentifying the changes in the local LOB database 210 since the last collection process was run and therefore makes the process 1100 efficient by only extracting and sending the specifically requested set of new information” and then “inserts the data into the shadow database 1102.” That is interpreted as comparing a new data set to a current representation. Gilder does so by identifying changes in a local base and then sending the changes to another database (shadow database). That means that prior to ingesting data for the shadow database, a comparison is performed to identify changes in the data. Meaning that the identifying step occurs “prior to providing the new data set to an ingestion process.” Gilder [0116] further discloses identifying any changes of data based at least on comparing data from a new data set.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Gilder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update current data with changed data.
Claims 4 and 19: Wilton discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 16 above, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the schema specifies formatting and identifies tables into which the new data set is to be stored.
However, Gilder [0112] discloses reconciles a schema, which is interpreted as how to store new data, including its format.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Gilder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update current data with changed data.
Claim 5: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 4, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the schema is used to identify the one or more changes to specific ones of the tables in the current representation by comparing the new data set to associated portions of the current representation.
However, Gilder [0116] further discloses identifying any changes of data based at least on comparing data from a new data set.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Gilder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update current data with changed data.
Claim 8: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose receive a schema change for the data set stored on the remote computing environment; and update the current representation of the data set to adhere to the schema change without generating a new version of the current representation.
However, Wilton (Col 8 ln 19-30) discloses at least changing schema, but, there is no suggestion in Wilton that a new version is generated. Rather, it seems that the cited portion of Wilton performs analogous function as what is recited in the instant specification at paragraph [0119] where “current representation… are updated to adhere to the new schema without generating a new version of the data set.” Furthermore, see Gilder [0112] where a different schema is reconsolidated.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Gilder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update current data with changed data.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Biezuner et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0176761).
Claim 6: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose extract an entry in the new data set corresponding to a new dimension to add to the existing data set in the remote computing environment; and storing the entry with the current representation, by stitching the entry into the current representation of the data set.
However, Biezuner [0028] discloses adding a column to a data set during migration.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Biezuner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update a particular data structure.
However, Biezuner [0028] discloses adding a column to a data set during migration.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Biezuner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to update a particular data structure.
Claim 7: Wilton as modified discloses the system of Claim 7 above, and Biezuner, for the same reason as above, further discloses wherein a request to load the new data set specifies a location of the new dimension within the existing data set [0028]. [See at least identifying where in the RDB a column is added.]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Aizman (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0011176).
Claim 9: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the new data set is a snapshot data set.
However, Aizman [0138] discloses migrating at least snapshots.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Aizman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to incrementally migrate data to at least preserve bandwidth.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Shrestha (US Patent Application 2023/0176960).
Claim 10: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the new data set is standardized in the remote computing environment in accordance with a configuration file.
However, Shrestha [0014] standardizing/converting data using a configuration file when copying files and Wilton (Fig. 5, Col 12 ln 1-67) discloses converting data prior to migrating it.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Shrestha. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that data is in an appropriate format when transferred.
Claim 11: Wilton as modified discloses the system of Claim 9 above, and Shrestha, for the same reason as above, further discloses wherein the schema is identified from the configuration file [0014].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Krasadakis (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0144064).
Claim 12: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more changes are identified by the system, and a storage layer persisting the representations of the data set is hosted by a remote computing server.
However, Wilton (Col 7 ln 32-50, Col 13 ln 9-20) discloses identifying changes and Krasadakis [0034] discloses where a storage layer is stored at least remotely.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Shrestha. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to access data from any number of devices.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Bengoa et al (US Patent Application Publication 11,379,439).
Claim 13: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more changes are identified based on changes to row hash values, or primary key hash values.
However, Bengoa (Col 14 ln 1-18) discloses identifying when changes based at least on row hash values, “Because this results in a different hash value for this row, the overall digital signature is modified as well, causing the incremental data transfer system to determine that the data segment has been modified.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Bengoa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify when a data set is modified.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Rai et al (US Patent 11,120,899).
Claim 14: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the current representation is persisted in different temporal based subsets.
However, Rai (Col 8 ln 19-34) discloses storing data where at least a node stores a particular temporal range.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Rai. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify data based at least on time ranges.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton et al (US Patent 10,803,031) in view of Gulamali (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0330875).
Claim 15: Wilton discloses the system of Claims 1, but Wilton alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a request to load the new data set comprises a configuration file for associating subsequent data with the current representation, and a template file with which the subsequent data needs to comply.
However, Gulamali [0041] discloses receiving data that is associated with configuration files and template files.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilton with Gulamali. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process incoming data in a manner consistent with templates and configuration of the receiving system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ranjith Reddy (2014/0289492) describes at least separating invalid data into another storage area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights