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 November 6, 2025. Claims 1-18 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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12474849 (similarly patent No. : 12367189).
Comparing the claims of the current application (application #19/381,185) with the patented claims (patents 12474849 and 12367189) side by side, it can be seen the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patents.
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 Patents. 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 1-18 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 receive, by the processor, a deletion record set; acquire, by the processor, an exclusive lock for one or more records in the deletion record set; consolidate, by the processor, one or more record blocks; update, by the processor, an in-memory record block index; and add, by the processor, a transaction log entry for an updated record block index update.
The claim recited the limitation of “update, by the processor, an in-memory record block index” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally update record block index. Therefore, the updating limitation is a mental process. Similarly, the limitation “add, by the processor, a transaction log entry for an updated record block index update” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally add transaction log and if necessary, they can use physical aid (e.g., pen 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.").
The claim recites three additional elements: receive, by a processor, a deletion record set, acquire, by the processor, an exclusive lock for one or more records in the deletion record set, and consolidate, by the processor, one or more record blocks. The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering, 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, acquire an exclusive lock for one or more records in the deletion record set is merely just giving exclusive access to received data set which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation consolidate one or more record blocks is just combining data records which is a form of 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 element of receiving, acquiring, and consolidating steps amounts to 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 consolidation of record blocks in a database. The claim recites the limitations of consolidate, by the processor, the one or more record blocks; and updating, by the processor, the in-memory record block index, are performed in parallel, 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 consolidation of record blocks in a database. The claim recites the limitations of consolidating the one or more record blocks comprises: receiving, by the processor, the deletion record set and a set of record blocks, each record block comprising a set of records: updating, by the processor, a list of records to keep, when processing each record in each set of record blocks; writing, by the processor, one or more new record blocks to a disk after processing each record in each set of record blocks; and updating, by the processor, an in-memory database, 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 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of consolidation of record blocks in a database. The claim recites the limitations of updating the list of records to keep comprises: receiving, by the processor, a current record and the deletion record set; where a record ID of the current record is not in the list of records to keep: adding, by the processor, the current record to the list of records to keep; and: where the record ID of the current record is in the list of records to keep: retrieving, by the processor, an existing record with a record ID that is identical to the record ID of the current record, from the list of records to keep; and where the current record replaces the existing record according to a replacement criteria: deleting, by the processor, the existing record from the list of records to keep; and adding, by the processor, the current record to the list of records to keep, 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 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of consolidation of record blocks in a database. The claim recites the limitations of replacement criteria comprises comparing a time stamp of the current record with a time stamp of the existing record, 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 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of consolidation of record blocks in a database. The claim recites the limitations of writing the one or more new record blocks to the disk, comprises: containing, by the processor, each record block in the list of records to keep to one record block; or containing, by the processor, each record block in the list of records to keep to a plurality of record blocks, 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 7-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (Pub. No. : US 20070130224 A1) in the view of Mritunjai et al. (Patent No. : US 10740312 B1)
As to claim 1 Fischer teaches a system comprising:
a processor and a memory storing instruction that, when executed by the processor (paragraph [0083]: include machine instructions for a programmable processor and magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions), configure the system to:
receive, by a processor, a deletion record set (paragraph [0059]: request deletion of the master data object at 510);
acquire, by the processor, an exclusive lock for one or more records in the deletion record set (paragraph [0045]: A master data collection that is archived for deletion can be locked and all subsequent changes, even those originating elsewhere, can be forbidden);
consolidate, by the processor, one or more record blocks (paragraph [0043], [0040]: consolidate master data across different data processing systems).
Fischer does not explicitly disclose but Mritunjai teaches update, by the processor, an in-memory record block index (column 3 lines 11, column 6 lines 5-19, column 7 lines 35-62: stores the update to the index table in an in-memory); and
add, by the processor, a transaction log entry for an updated record block index update (column 13 line 60 to column 14 line 33: when an update is provided to the database table, the update is written to a log (also referred to herein as a “transaction log”)).
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 Fischer by adding above limitations as taught by Mritunjai to maintain a number of logs associated with the indexing database tables (Mritunjai, column 13, lines 61-62).
As to claim 2 Fischer together with Mritunjai teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1. Fischer teaches wherein: consolidate, by the processor, the one or more record blocks and updating, by the processor, the in-memory record block index, are performed in parallel (paragraph [0021]: the data processing systems can operate in parallel).
As to claim 3 Fischer together with Mritunjai teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1. Fischer teaches
receive, by the processor, the deletion record set and a set of record blocks, each record block comprising a set of records (paragraph [0047]: after the archiving of the master data collection for deletion, the master data collection can be deleted from the system);
update, by the processor, a list of records to keep, when processing each record in each set of record blocks (paragraphs [0049]-[0050], [0043]: identify the master data object that is to be deleted and publish the master data object that is to be deleted and changes to the master data collection in other data processing systems can be propagated to data processing system);
write, by the processor, one or more new record blocks to a disk after processing each record in each set of record blocks (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]: widespread relevance of master data collections, multiple, corresponding versions of the collections of master data may be stored individually at different data processing systems in system landscapes 100, 200); and
Mritunjai teaches update, by the processor, an in-memory database (Column 7 lines 63-66: the database service 204 then stores the update that was replicated in the in-memory replica index table 214 in a queue 216 for eventual storage in the replica index table 218).
As to claim 4 Fischer together with Mritunjai teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 3. Fischer teaches wherein update the list of records to keep comprises: receive, by the processor, a current record and the deletion record set, where a record ID of the current record is not in the list of records to keep, add, by the processor, the current record to the list of records to keep, and: where the record ID of the current record is in the list of records to keep: retrieve, by the processor, an existing record with a record ID that is identical to the record ID of the current record, from the list of records to keep, and where the current record replaces the existing record according to a replacement criteria, delete, by the processor, the existing record from the list of records to keep; and add, by the processor, the current record to the list of records to keep (paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0040], [0043], [0049]-[0050], [0059], also see Mritunjai column 3 lines 11, column 6 lines 5-19, column 7 lines 35-62, column 13 line 60 to column 14 line 33).
As to claim 5 Fischer together with Mritunjai teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 4. Fischer teaches wherein the replacement criteria comprises comparing a time stamp of the current record with a time stamp of the existing record (paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
As to claim 6 Fischer together with Mritunjai teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 3. Fischer teaches wherein writing the one or more new record blocks to the disk, comprises: contain, by the processor, each record block in the list of records to keep to one record block; or contain, by the processor, each record block in the list of records to keep to a plurality of record blocks (paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0040], [0043]).
As to claims 7-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6 above.
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