DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/26 has been entered.
Remarks
This action is in response to the request for continued examination received on 6/18/26. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschillo et al. (US 2005/0050068), and further in view of Scott et al. (US 9,052,879).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschillo in view of Scott, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2004/0181543).
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? See MPEP 2106.04 Part I. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
With respect to claim 1, the limitation of “detect an incompatibility”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-4 are directed towards a system comprising a processor and a memory, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the claim recites “receiving… a view definition,” “obtaining… a description,” and “provide… an indication.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to “receiving… a view definition” and “obtaining… a description”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. 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).
With respect to “provide… an indication”, the courts have found limitations directed towards presenting to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes. The limitation of “determine one or more suggested modifications”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 5-9, limitations present the same issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claims 1-4 and have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations are directed towards storing data and a first data model, the second data model, and of the management system implementing a hub data model. These data models do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations discuss a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network, however, there are not limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13, the limitation of “evaluating… The view definition”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 13-20 are directed towards a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and one or more computing devices, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the claim recites “receiving… a view definition,” “obtaining… a description,” and “executing … the plan.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to “receiving… a view definition” and “obtaining… a description”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. 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).
With respect to “executing … the plan”, the courts have found limitations directed towards invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process as mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 14, the limitation of “identifying an incompatibility”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference.
The limitation of “determining a resolution”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites “provide… an indication” and “receiving… the resolution.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
With respect to “provide… an indication”, the courts have found limitations directed towards presenting to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
With respect to “receiving… the resolution”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. 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).
With respect to claim 16, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes. The limitation of “determining one or more suggested modifications”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites “receiving a request” and “automatically creating the mapping view definition.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
With respect to “receiving a request”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. 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).
The limitation of “automatically creating the mapping view definition”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “automatically creating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an association.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes. The limitation of “determining a resolution”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations discuss a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network, however, there are not limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vaschillo et al. (US 2005/0050068).
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 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschillo et al. (US 2005/0050068), and further in view of Scott et al. (US 9,052,879).
With respect to claim 1, Vaschillo teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory, storing program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement a materialized view management service, the materialized view management service configured to:
receive, via an interface, a view definition for a materialized view (Vaschillo, pa 0044, At 200, the data models for data mapping are identified. At 202, once the data models are identified, the corresponding metadata for each model is identified. At 204, data mapping commences from the source model to the target model.), the view definition:
including a schema specifying data to obtain from one or more source data stores that store the data of the materialized view (Vaschillo, pa 0038, That is, the source model 102 exposes source metadata 108 and the target model 104 exposes target metadata 110, which metadata (108 and 110) each comprise conceptual entities that are directly relatable via the mapping component 106. The metadata entities include the concepts (or expressions) of structure, field, and relationship. & pa 0040, The source model 102 is the persistent location of the data); and
identifying a target data store to store the data of the materialized view a target data store to store the data of the materialized view (Vaschillo, pa 0044, At 200, the data models for data mapping are identified. At 202, once the data models are identified, the corresponding metadata for each model is identified. At 204, data mapping commences from the source model to the target model. & pa 0049, When one data source schema is mapped to another, what is being requested is that it is desired for the target schema to be a view of the source schema.), wherein the one or more source data stores support the first type system (Vaschillo, pa 0005, Each data model exposes at least one of three concepts (or expressions) to mapping: structure, field, and relationship. All of these concepts can be mapped between the data models. It is possible that one data model may have only one or two of the expressions to be mapped into another data model that has three expressions).
Vaschillo doesn’t expressly discuss wherein the description of the second type system is specified in a same schema language as the first type system; detect an incompatibility between a schema for the data specified in the view definition with a second type system of the target data store based, at least in part, on a determination that an item of a data type in the data, supported according to the first type system, violates the rule of the second type system in the description in the schema language that specifies one or more valid features of the data type for the target data store.
Scott teaches obtain a description of a second type system of the target data store, wherein the description of the second type system is specified in a same schema language as the first type system (Scott, Col. 7 Li. 15-18, source or target applications rely upon databases and other stores described using an XML compatible language. & Col. 9 Li. 10-14, identify acceptable values capable of being stored by the target applications (504). The analysis examines the type of each related field in the target application and identifies an acceptable range of values to be stored.);
detect an incompatibility between a schema for the data specified in the view definition with a second type system of the target data store based, at least in part, on a determination that an item of a data type in the data, supported according to the first type system, violates the rule of the second type system in the description in the schema language that specifies one or more valid features of the data type for the target data store (Scott, Col. 9 Li. 28-33, Type compatibility analysis between the mapped fields in the source application and target application determines the type of indicators to provide. Initially, a comparison determines if all the potential field values between the mapped fields of the target and source application are compatible (506). A set of type compatibility rules are generated to determine when values to be generated by the source applications overlaps with the acceptable set of values capable of being stored by the target applications. For example, the type compatibility rules can include comparing the individual fields in the source application against corresponding mapped fields in the target application. & Li. 58-61, no potential field values between the mapped fields are compatible (514) then a map error is indicated as no possible field value between one or more mapped fields is compatible);
provide, via the interface, an indication of the incompatibility of the schema specified in the view definition with the type system for the target data store (Scott, Col. 11 Li. 15-17, mapping status indication component flags specific mappings between fields with warnings or errors depending on the type compatibility analysis & Col. 11 Li. 24-26, Completion indication component 722 provides a relative measure of completion through the mapping interface depending on the status of the individual mappings & Col. 11 Li. 32-35, the completion indicator registers less than 100% completion when one or more errors exist or one or more fields from the field of a source application are not yet mapped to a field in a target application).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo with the teachings of Scott because it provides integration between applications to have fewer errors at runtime (Scott, Col. 2 Li. 44-46).
With respect to claim 3, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the view definition includes a function mapping the item in the data to the data type in the second type system for the target data store and wherein to detect the incompatibility between the schema for the data, specified in the view definition with the second type system for the target data store, the materialized view management service is configured to detect a missing data type according to the rule when evaluating the function specified in the view definition mapping the item to the data type in the second type system for the target data store (Vaschillo, pa 0151 If the SourceRelationship cardinality is OneToOne the TargetField type must be scalar, otherwise it is an error. If the SourceRelationship cardinality is OneToMany the TargetField type must be list type, otherwise it is an error. & Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view & pa 0745, Next, in step 3020, the software searches for views 2710 that contain all or a subset of the required data components 2730 … Step 3040, performed by the view ranking processor 2745 ranks the views 2740 according to how well they match the set of required data components 2730. Finally, in step 3050, the processor 2745, presents the ranked views as a list 2750 to the user for selection and indicating the number of required data components that were directly included.).
With respect to claim 5, the limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 9, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the view definition is specified according to a query language (Vaschilla, pa 0007, The Target holds the view of the source model, where the mapping is materialized using the query language of the target domain).
With respect to claim 10, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more data stores store data according to a first data model, wherein the target data store stores data according to a second data model, wherein the view management system implements a hub data model, and wherein the first data model and the second data model are respective extensions of the hub data model in the schema language (Vaschillo, pa 0259-0260, Referring now to FIG. 10, there is illustrated a hub-and-spoke implementation of the mapping architecture of the present invention. This implementation is particularly useful in a large network environment, e.g., the Internet or large corporate network, where the usefulness of data paths at any point in time can be impacted due to network interruptions, available bandwidth, etc. There is provided a central control entity 1000 in communication with any number of data sources (S1, S2, and S3) from and/or through which data is being moved or queried, and any number of intermediate data targets 1008 (also denoted as T/S). Ultimately, it may be desired that the mapping is from one of the sources (S1, S2, and S3) to a target T2. [0260] The central control entity 1000 includes a control component 1002 for controlling all aspects of the entity 1000, including a description component resource 1004 that stores a number of accessible description algorithms for transforming data from one type of data model to another (e.g., a relational, Object, XML, . . . )).
With respect to claim 12, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the view management system is a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network that offers a plurality of different data storage services, wherein the target data store is implemented as part of one of the plurality of data storage services different than the one or more source data stores (Vaschillo, pa 0259, There is provided a central control entity 1000 in communication with any number of data sources (S1, S2, and S3) from and/or through which data is being moved or queried, and any number of intermediate data targets 1008 (also denoted as T/S).
With respect to claim 13, Vaschillo teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to implement
receiving, by a view management system, a view definition that specifies one or more source data stores and a target data store (Vaschillo, pa 0044, At 200, the data models for data mapping are identified. At 202, once the data models are identified, the corresponding metadata for each model is identified. At 204, data mapping commences from the source model to the target model. & pa 0049, When one data source schema is mapped to another, what is being requested is that it is desired for the target schema to be a view of the source schema.) wherein the view definition is specified according to a query language (Vaschillo, pa 0007, The Target holds the view of the source model, where the mapping is materialized using the query language of the target domain.), and wherein the view management system implements a hub data model that is extensible to include a first data model specifying first valid types according to a first type system for the one or more source data sources and a second data model specifying second valid types according to a second type system for the target data store (Vaschillo, pa 0005, Each data model exposes at least one of three concepts (or expressions) to mapping: structure, field, and relationship. All of these concepts can be mapped between the data models. It is possible that one data model may have only one or two of the expressions to be mapped into another data model that has three expressions & pa 0259-0260, Referring now to FIG. 10, there is illustrated a hub-and-spoke implementation of the mapping architecture of the present invention. This implementation is particularly useful in a large network environment, e.g., the Internet or large corporate network, where the usefulness of data paths at any point in time can be impacted due to network interruptions, available bandwidth, etc. There is provided a central control entity 1000 in communication with any number of data sources (S1, S2, and S3) from and/or through which data is being moved or queried, and any number of intermediate data targets 1008 (also denoted as T/S). Ultimately, it may be desired that the mapping is from one of the sources (S1, S2, and S3) to a target T2. [0260] The central control entity 1000 includes a control component 1002 for controlling all aspects of the entity 1000, including a description component resource 1004 that stores a number of accessible description algorithms for transforming data from one type of data model to another (e.g., a relational, Object, XML, . . . )).
evaluating, by the view management system, the view definition according to the hub data model to determine a plan to generate a view according to the view definition (Vaschillo, pa 0044, At 206, the system determines if a mapping error has occurred. … if a mapping error has not occurred, flow is from 206 to 210 to continue the mapping process until completed.) based, at least in part, on an evaluation of an item of a data type in data of the view with respect to a rule of the second type system … that specifies one or more valid features of the data type for the target data store (Vaschillo, pa 0119, The Target must be a valid structure in the target domain that has relationship to the mapped target. The Target must be a name of a related mapped structure in the target domain. It is an error to specify a name for a structure (Type, Element) that is not mapped in another map or does not have a relationship to the Target on the parent Map. & pa 0123, The relationship between two mapped target structures must be mapped. Any two mapped target structures that have a relationship defined in the target domain which are mapped to source structures through the Source attribute must have a RelationshipMap. …This validation happens using the following algorithm: For each mapped target structure get all relationships to other target structures. { For each related target structure { IF ( The related target structure is mapped And (apply only to XML domain, please ignore for Object) The related structure is a child element and the current target structure map does not mapped using the "Ref" attribute. Validate that a valid RelationshipMap based on the validation rules above exists. } }); and
executing, by the view management system, the plan to generate the view (Vaschillo, pa 0049, when mapping a relational database to XML, the view is being defined where the look (or schema) is ultimately defined by XSD, and a mapping file defines how to generate (by processing and executing) this view over the relational database represented with an RSD file. & pa 0060, At the execution step, the mapping processor exposes the mapping information which when combined with the XQuery statement will be used by the SQLGen engine to compose a query that corresponds to the relevant parts of the mapping.).
Vaschillo doesn’t expressly discuss obtaining, by the view management system, a description of the second type system of the target data store, wherein the description of the second type system is specified in a same schema language as the first type system.
Scott teaches obtaining, by the view management system, a description of the second type system of the target data store, wherein the description of the second type system is specified in a same schema language as the first type system (Scott, Col. 7 Li. 15-18, source or target applications rely upon databases and other stores described using an XML compatible language. & Col. 9 Li. 10-14, identify acceptable values capable of being stored by the target applications (504). The analysis examines the type of each related field in the target application and identifies an acceptable range of values to be stored.);
evaluating, by the view management system, the view definition according to the hub data model to determine a plan to generate a view according to the view definition, at least in part, on an evaluation of an item of a data type in the data of the view with respect to a rule of the second type system in the description in the schema language that specifies one or more valid features of the data type for the target data store (Scott, Col. 9 Li. 28-33, Type compatibility analysis between the mapped fields in the source application and target application determines the type of indicators to provide. Initially, a comparison determines if all the potential field values between the mapped fields of the target and source application are compatible (506). A set of type compatibility rules are generated to determine when values to be generated by the source applications overlaps with the acceptable set of values capable of being stored by the target applications. For example, the type compatibility rules can include comparing the individual fields in the source application against corresponding mapped fields in the target application. & Li. 58-61, no potential field values between the mapped fields are compatible (514) then a map error is indicated as no possible field value between one or more mapped fields is compatible).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo with the teachings of Scott because it provides integration between applications to have fewer errors at runtime (Scott, Col. 2 Li. 44-46).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschillo in view of Scott, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2004/0181543).
With respect to claim 2, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Wu teaches wherein the materialized view management service is further configured to: determine one or more suggested modifications to the view definition to resolve the incompatibility; and wherein the one or more suggested modifications are provided with the indication of the incompatibility of the data type (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo in view of Scott with the teachings of Wu because it assists users in making data views relevant to their tasks (Wu, pa 0595).
With respect to claim 4, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Wu teaches wherein the view definition is a mapping view definition, wherein the mapping view definition identifies a schema for the view specified in a different view definition that identifies a different target data store to store the view (Wu, pa 0627, The central recommending system 2200 generates a list of recommendations that includes all data components that are possibly related to the specified one or more data components. This list contains all data components, which have direct or indirect relationships with the specified data components and is generated without knowledge of the desired display type).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo with the teachings of Wu because it assists users in enhancing mappings in data views (Wu, pa 0595).
With respect to claims 6 and 8, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 2 and 4, and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 11, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above.
Wu teaches wherein view definition further specifies a different source data store in addition to the one or more source data stores to obtain further data from the different source data store to store in the target data store as part of the view, wherein the further data stored in the different source data store is stored according to a third data model different from the first data model (Wu, pa 0605, To create the bar chart (ie. a new data view), the planning manager can select to create a new data view having the bar chart display type and the default bar chart display template is displayed, as shown in FIG. 15. The planning manager may then examine the data sources that he/she knows about. Perhaps there are just two known data sources, the SalesTargetsDS and a human resource database (HRDB)).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo in view of Scott with the teachings of Wu because it assists users in enhancing mappings in data views (Wu, pa 0595).
With respect to claim 14, Vaschillo in view of Scott teaches the method of claim 13, wherein evaluating the view definition according to the hub data model to determine the plan to generate the view, comprises: identifying an incompatibility between the one or more source data stores and the target data store (Vaschillo, pa 0044, At 206, the system determines if a mapping error has occurred. If YES, flow is to 208 to report the error.).
Vaschillo in view of Scott doesn't expressly discuss determining a resolution for the incompatibility.
Wu teaches identifying an incompatibility between the one or more source data stores and the target data store; determining a resolution for the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, In step 1430, the process 1490 operates to detect a user request of the data browsing application 120 to provide a list of recommendations for other data components that may be relevant to the data view being created. According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo in view of Scott with the teachings of Wu because it assists users in making data views relevant to their tasks (Wu, pa 0595).
With respect to claim 15, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein determining the resolution for the incompatibility comprises: providing, via an interface of the view management system, an indication of the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view); and receiving, via the interface of the view management system, the resolution for the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.).
With respect to claim 16, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining one or more suggested modifications to the view definition to resolve the incompatibility; and wherein the one or more suggested modifications are provided with the indication of the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).
With respect to claim 17, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the resolution is a selected one of the one or more suggested modifications (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.).
With respect to claim 18, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 14, as discussed above. Vaschillo in view of Scott doesn’t expressly disclose receiving a request to create a mapping view definition to a different target data store than the target data store in the view definition and automatically creating the mapping view definition to the different target data store based on the view definition.
Wu teaches receiving a request to create a mapping view definition to a different target data store than the target data store in the view definition (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.); and automatically creating the mapping view definition to the different target data store based on the view definition (Wu, pa 0600, the data of the data view is updated to include the selected data component. the query associated with the data view is also updated.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Vaschillo in view of Scott with the teachings of Wu because it assists users in enhancing mappings in data views (Wu, pa 0595).
With respect to claim 19, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 18, wherein automatically creating the mapping view definition comprises determining a resolution to an identified incompatibility between the one or more source data stores and the different target data store (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view & pa 0745, Next, in step 3020, the software searches for views 2710 that contain all or a subset of the required data components 2730).
With respect to claim 20, Vaschillo in view of Scott and Wu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the view management system is a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network that offers a plurality of different data storage services, wherein the target data store is implemented as part of one of the plurality of data storage services different than the one or more source data stores (Vaschillo, pa 0259, There is provided a central control entity 1000 in communication with any number of data sources (S1, S2, and S3) from and/or through which data is being moved or queried, and any number of intermediate data targets 1008 (also denoted as T/S).).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that the current claims are integrated into a practical application because the claimed system provides significant technical advantages including improved computing efficiency and resource utilization by enabling in efficient discovery of incompatible schemas of the materialized view using type systems specified in a same schema language without requiring a user to define or translate between different data stores explicitly and the claims system reduces computational overhead by increasing the speed and flexibility with which of the materialized view can be deployed to additional target data stores. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to pa 0016 and 0080 for showing the claimed improvement. Proactive incompatibility detection is captured in the claim language through the “detect” limitation, however, this has been identified as a mental process. At Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea should be integrated into a practical application through recitation of additional elements. The claims do not include additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant seems to argue a newly amended limitation. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the previous rejection moot. Upon further consideration of the amendment, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Scott et al. (US 9,052,879).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY N ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/BRITTANY N ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights