DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 2025-10-24. Claim(s) 9 was/were cancelled. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are pending and are examined herein.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are objected to.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 USC 102.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013-03-16, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2025-10-24 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statement(s) (IDS), submitted on 2025-11-17, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the attached information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections for informalities and rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the applicant’s amendments resolve some, but not all, of the issues raised in the previous Office action (e.g., the phrase “the legacy domain information model” in claim 6 continues to lack antecedent basis). Issues in the pending claim are described below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, the applicant appears to assert that “[g]enerating a binding configuration and using it to translate information requests to process variables in this manner cannot reasonable be performed via by the human mind” [remarks, page 9; sic]. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claim recites abstract ideas at Step 2A Prong 1 of the analysis. The human mind is capable both of establishing relationships between data from different sources and of translating requests. The claims do not recite any details regarding either the generation of the binding configuration or the translation of a request that would preclude these steps from being performed in the human mind.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, the applicant asserts that the claimed invention has a practical application since it is a “bridge between modern and legacy systems” [remarks, page 10]. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the cursory nature of this analysis. As indicated in the previous Office action, a claimed invention is not patent eligible merely because it has a practical application: abstract ideas (including both mental processes and mathematical concepts) can have a practical application without being patent eligible. The question to be answered at Step 2A Prong 2 is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” The applicant’s remarks do not indicate any specific additional elements that they believe integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, as indicated in the previous Office action and again below, the additional elements in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are mere recitations of generic computing equipment or of generic operations such as data storage or data transfer.
The complete 101 analysis, updated in view of the applicant’s amendments, is given below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102/103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive.
The applicant remarks that “Amaru does not make any mentions into the comparative analysis of semantic models… nor does it mention aligning components” [remarks, page 11]. However, Amaru clearly discloses “mapping [schemas for physical data sources] into the central model” where these “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. Generating these mappings is thus clearly a type of “comparative analysis” and the fact that the mappings establish a correspondence between constructs of different models means that they “align components” of the models, as required by the claim.
The applicant appears to assert that Amaru does not disclose “utilizing knowledge graphs extracted from domain knowledge repositories” [remarks, page 11]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the previous Office action and again below, Amaru discloses the central model having the structure of a knowledge graph [Amaru, figure 4; see also, 0114-0127, 0272].
The examiner maintains that all features of the amended independent claims continue to be disclosed by Amaru. The complete prior art mapping, updated in view of the applicant’s amendments, is given below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the ranking of likelihoods binding proposals but this is ungrammatical. It should be “the ranking of likelihoods of binding proposals” for grammaticality.
Claim 6 recites convert the legacy domain information model into the legacy domain semantic model [emphasis added] but the underlined phrase lacks antecedent basis since neither claims nor their respective parents recite a legacy domain information model. The examiner suggests “convert a legacy domain information model into the legacy domain semantic model” for proper antecedent basis (and for analogy with claim 13).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
35 USC 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1. The claim and its dependents 2-7 fall under the statutory category of machines. An analysis of step 2 for each of these claims follows.
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
make a comparison of a legacy domain semantic model extracted from a controller of an autonomous system, to a knowledge graph extracted from a knowledge repository of domain knowledge related to the autonomous system; (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can mentally or manually make a comparison. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
and based on the comparison, generate a binding configuration that defines components of a standardized model instance that align with components of the autonomous system; (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can mentally or manually generate relationships/bindings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
processing communications related to a standardized information model, (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can process communications. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
perform a translation of each of the information requests to a set of process variables of the legacy domain semantic model, … wherein the translation is based on the binding configuration. (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can manually perform translations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
A system for knowledge based information modeling, comprising: at least one storage device [storing a knowledge repository] and computer-executable instructions configured as one or more modules; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one storage device and execute the instructions, wherein the modules comprise: a semantic binding engine configured to:… an adapter comprising: a server for… and a translator configured to… (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
[at least one storage device] storing a knowledge repository (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; (This recites data of a particular type or source, merely linking an abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
and to send a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information request, (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
A system for knowledge based information modeling, comprising: at least one storage device [storing a knowledge repository] and computer-executable instructions configured as one or more modules; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one storage device and execute the instructions, wherein the modules comprise: a semantic binding engine configured to… an adapter comprising: a server for… and a translator configured to… (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
[at least one storage device] storing a knowledge repository (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Electronic recordkeeping” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; (This recites data of a particular type or source, merely linking an abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
and to send a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
processing a series of binding configurations for refinement of the knowledge repository and to generate a ranking of likelihoods of binding proposals; (This recites a mathematical concept (likelihood) and a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can generate lists of candidate bindings based on some estimate of their likelihoods. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, III).)
updates the standardized information model based on the knowledge repository and the ranking of likelihoods binding proposals. (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can update an information model based on a ranking of candidates. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the semantic binding engine and the adapter modules are deployed as a cloud based system (This recites a general link between an abstract idea and a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
accessing a plurality of binding configurations associated with a plurality of respective autonomous systems; (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the plurality of binding configurations are stored in the knowledge repository, (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the modules are further comprising: a machine learning module for… wherein the semantic binding engine (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the semantic binding engine and the adapter modules are deployed as a cloud based system (This recites a general link between an abstract idea and a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
accessing a plurality of binding configurations associated with a plurality of respective autonomous systems; (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
wherein the plurality of binding configurations are stored in the knowledge repository, (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Electronic recordkeeping” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
wherein the modules are further comprising: a machine learning module for… wherein the semantic binding engine (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein the binding engine is further configured to:] generate a binding proposal of candidate nodes for a model instance of the standardized model sorted by likelihood (This recites a mathematical concept (likelihood) and a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can generate lists of candidate bindings based on some estimate of their likelihoods. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, III).)
wherein the binding configuration is based on a user selection of a candidate node. (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can establish relationships/bindings between data models based on someone’s selection of candidates. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
according to algorithms of the binding engine; (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
according to algorithms of the binding engine; (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 3, wherein the binding engine is further configured to:] generate a plurality of binding configurations, each binding configuration for a respective model instance, (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[wherein the knowledge repository is further configured to] store the plurality of binding configurations. (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[wherein the knowledge repository is further configured to] store the plurality of binding configurations. (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Electronic recordkeeping” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] during initialization of the adapter for runtime operation, the server reads a plurality of standardized model instances of respective binding configurations (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and presents a standardized model to assist the information requests. (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] during initialization of the adapter for runtime operation, the server reads a plurality of standardized model instances of respective binding configurations (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
and presents a standardized model to assist the information requests. (The insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is merely presenting output. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Presenting offers”.)
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
identify existing structure for the process variable data, (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can identify the structure of something. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
and convert the legacy domain information model into the legacy domain semantic model. (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can convert between models. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, further comprising:] an explorer component configured to (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
extract process variable data from the controller, (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, further comprising:] an explorer component configured to (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
extract process variable data from the controller, (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the adapter is embedded in the controller. (This recites a general link between an abstract idea and a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the adapter is embedded in the controller. (This recites a general link between an abstract idea and a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Claim 8
Step 1. The claim and its dependents 9-13 fall under the statutory category of methods.
Step 2A Prong 1. The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
A method for knowledge based information modeling, comprising: (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can model information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
making a comparison of a legacy domain semantic model extracted from a controller of an autonomous system, to a knowledge graph extracted from a knowledge repository of domain knowledge related to the autonomous system; (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can mentally or manually make a comparison. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
and based on the comparison, generating, [by a service platform,] a binding configuration that defines components of a standardized model instance that align with components of the autonomous system; (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can mentally or manually generate relationships/bindings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
processing, [by the service platform,] communications related to a standardized information model, (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can process communications. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
and translating, [by the service platform,] each of the information requests to a set of process variables of the legacy domain semantic model, … wherein the translating is based on the binding configuration. (This recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, since a human being can manually perform translations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
by a service platform… by the service platform… by the service platform… (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; (This recites data of a particular type or source, merely linking an abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
and sending a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information request, (This recites insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B. The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
by a service platform… by the service platform… by the service platform… (This recites generic computing components for performing an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; (This recites data of a particular type or source, merely linking an abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
and sending a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information request, (This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, conventional as it is mere data transfer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and/or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
Claims 10-13 inherit limitations from claim 8 and recite additional limitations which are substantially similar to those recited by claims 3-6, respectively, so they are rejected by the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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.
(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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruth AMARU et al. (US20030177481A1, published 2003-09-18; hereafter, “Amaru”).
Claim 1
Amaru discloses:
A system for knowledge based information modeling, comprising: ([Amaru, 0011]: Amaru discloses a “method and system for enterprise unification, which overcomes the problems of diversity among data sources” [Amaru, 0011].)
at least one storage device storing a knowledge repository and computer-executable instructions configured as one or more modules; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one storage device and execute the instructions, ([Amaru, 0072]: Amaru discloses that the system may be implemented on a “computer system… which includes a processor and memory which stores software instructions which can be executed by the processor” [Amaru, 0072].)
wherein the modules comprise: a semantic binding engine configured to: make a comparison of a legacy domain semantic model extracted from a controller of an autonomous system, ([Amaru, 0006, 0068, 0093-0094, 0100-0101, figure 3]: Amaru discloses “mapping [schemas for physical data sources] into the central model” where these “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. Amaru also calls this central model a “central information model” [Amaru, 0068], an “information model” [Amaru, 0101], or an “ontology model” [Amaru, 0101], and indicates that it lives “within [an] enterprise information unification system” [Amaru, 0093]. Amaru also indicates that the diversity of data sources can arise “by legacy” [Amaru, 0006] and that the data stores can include “legacy data” [Amaru, 0094]. Amaru further indicates that the central model is “generated by business modeler 310” [Amaru, 0100 and figure 3], this business modeler being a part of the enterprise information unification system [Amaru, 0100]. In other words, a schema for a physical data source maps to the “legacy domain semantic model” of the claim, and the enterprise information unification system maps to the “semantic binding engine”, the “controller”, and the “autonomous system” of the claim.) to a knowledge graph extracted from a knowledge repository of domain knowledge related to the autonomous system; ([Amaru, figure 4, 0068, 0125, and 0272]: Amaru depicts the central model having the structure of a knowledge graph [Amaru, 0125 and figure 4] and indicates that it may have the structure of a “graph” [Amaru, 0272]. See also: [Amaru, 0114-0127]. This knowledge graph maps to the “knowledge graph” of the claim. The enterprise information unification system maps to the “knowledge repository of domain knowledge” of the claim; this falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “related to the autonomous system” as mapped above. Generating a mapping involves “mak[ing] a comparison” of the legacy domain semantic model to the knowledge graph (since, as noted above, the “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond go constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]).)
and based on the comparison, generate a binding configuration that defines components of a standardized model instance that align with components of the autonomous system; ([Amaru, 0068]: As noted above, Amaru discloses “mapping [schemas for physical data sources] into the central model” where these “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond go constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. The central model maps to the “standardized model instance” of the claim, and such a mapping maps to the “binding configuration” of the claim. Then the constructs of the central model map to the “components of [the] standardized model instance” and the constructs of the mapped schemas to the “components of the autonomous system” of the claim. In other words, the mappings ensure that the “components of [the] standardized model instance… align with [the] components of the autonomous system” as recited by the claim. Moreover, generating these mappings is “based on the comparison” as recited by the claim (since, as noted above, the mappings “identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]).)
an adapter comprising: a server for processing communications related to a standardized information model, ([Amaru, 0110]: The system includes a “query processor 380 [which] may convert a query for the informational model into an SQL query for a relational database and an Xquery for an XML database” [Amaru, 0110]. The queries received by the query processor map to the “communications” of the claim, and the central model maps to the “standardized information model” of the claim. See also: [Amaru, 0189-0193]. The enterprise knowledge unification system is the “adapter” of the claim. Amaru also discloses a “server-side architecture in which a client computer performs little of the required application logic, most of which is performed by a server computer” [Amaru, 0205]. The server computer maps to the “server” of the claim.)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; ([Amaru, 0091, 0110]: The queries on the central model received by the query processor map to the “information requests” of the claim, and the output queries for the physical data stores map to the “information responses” of the claim. The system has a “user interface” [Amaru, 0091], which maps to the “external interface” of the claim. The queries on the central model fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “relate[d] to data associated with the controller” as recited by the claim, with the “controller” being as mapped above.)
and a translator configured to perform a translation of each of the information requests to a set of process variables of the legacy domain semantic model, ([Amaru, 0091]: As noted above, the query processor converts queries on the central model into queries for the physical data stores. This conversion maps to the “translating” recited by the claim, and the resulting queries for the physical data stores map to the “set of process variables” of the claim.)
and to send a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information request, ([Amaru, 0111]: Amaru indicates that the queries for the physical data stores are “passed on to one or more enterprise applications 390 for execution” [Amaru, 0111]. This query for the physical data store is the “request” of the claim, and the act of passing on the query maps to the “sending” operation of the claim.)
wherein the translation is based on the binding configuration. ([Amaru, 0091]: As noted above, the query processor acts on queries on the central model and uses the mappings to convert/translate these into queries on the physical data stores. In other words, the conversion/translating is “based on the binding configuration” as mapped above.)
Claim 5
Amaru discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It also discloses:
[The system of claim 1, wherein] during initialization of the adapter for runtime operation, the server reads a plurality of standardized model instances of respective binding configurations and presents a standardized model to assist the information requests. ([Amaru, 0196, 0199]: Amaru discloses a method of “collaborative modeling, whereby multiple users generate a project including a central information model… and its peripherals, including inter alia mappings of physical data assets into the information model” [Amaru, 0196]. In this system, “[l]ocal project builders 540 preferably operate on local copies of the central project” [Amaru, 0199]. The local copies of the central model and its peripherals map to the “plurality of standardized model instances of respective binding configurations” of the claim, and the central copy of the central model and its peripherals maps to the “standardized model” of the claim.)
Claim 7
Amaru discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It also discloses:
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the adapter is embedded in the controller. ([Amaru, 0093]: In the mapping of the parent claim, the enterprise information unification system is mapped to both the “adapter” and the “controller” of the claim. In particular, this mapping already satisfies the limitation that the “adapter is embedded in the controller” as recited by this claim.)
Claim 8
Amaru discloses:
A method for knowledge based information modeling, comprising: ([Amaru, 0011]: Amaru discloses a “method and system for enterprise unification, which overcomes the problems of diversity among data sources” [Amaru, 0011].)
making a comparison of a legacy domain semantic model extracted from a controller of an autonomous system, ([Amaru, 0006, 0068, 0093-0094, 0100-0101, figure 3]: Amaru discloses “mapping [schemas for physical data sources] into the central model” where these “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. Amaru also calls this central model a “central information model” [Amaru, 0068], an “information model” [Amaru, 0101], or an “ontology model” [Amaru, 0101], and indicates that it lives “within [an] enterprise information unification system” [Amaru, 0093]. Amaru also indicates that the diversity of data sources can arise “by legacy” [Amaru, 0006] and that the data stores can include “legacy data” [Amaru, 0094]. Amaru further indicates that the central model is “generated by business modeler 310” [Amaru, 0100 and figure 3], this business modeler being a part of the enterprise information unification system [Amaru, 0100]. In other words, a schema for a physical data source maps to the “legacy domain semantic model” of the claim, and the enterprise information unification system maps to the “semantic binding engine”, the “controller”, and the “autonomous system” of the claim.) to a knowledge graph extracted from a knowledge repository of domain knowledge related to the autonomous system; ([Amaru, figure 4, 0068, 0125, and 0272]: Amaru depicts the central model having the structure of a knowledge graph [Amaru, 0125 and figure 4] and indicates that it may have the structure of a “graph” [Amaru, 0272]. See also: [Amaru, 0114-0127]. This knowledge graph maps to the “knowledge graph” of the claim. The enterprise information unification system maps to the “knowledge repository of domain knowledge” of the claim; this falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “related to the autonomous system” as mapped above. Generating a mapping involves “mak[ing] a comparison” of the legacy domain semantic model to the knowledge graph (since, as noted above, the “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond go constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]).)
and based on the comparison, generating, by a service platform, a binding configuration that defines components of a standardized model instance that align with components of the autonomous system; ([Amaru, 0068]: As noted above, Amaru discloses “mapping [schemas for physical data sources] into the central model” where these “mappings identify constructs of the central model that correspond go constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. The central model maps to the “standardized model instance” of the claim, and such a mapping maps to the “binding configuration” of the claim. Then the constructs of the central model map to the “components of [the] standardized model instance” and the constructs of the mapped schemas to the “components of the autonomous system” of the claim. In other words, the mappings ensure that the “components of [the] standardized model instance… align with [the] components of the autonomous system” as recited by the claim. Moreover, generating these mappings is “based on the comparison” as recited by the claim (since, as noted above, the mappings “identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]). The enterprise information unification system maps to the “service platform” of the claim.)
wherein the binding configuration represents a mapping of standardized model instance components to a component of the legacy domain semantic model; ([Amaru, 0068]: As noted above, a mapping from a schema for a physical data source to the central model is mapped to a “binding configuration” of the claim. In other words, components of the components of the central model are the “standardized model instance components” and the components of the schema for a physical data source is the “component of the legacy domain semantic model” of the claim. See also: [Amaru, 0144-0166].)
processing, by the service platform, communications related to a standardized information model, ([Amaru, 0110]: The system includes a “query processor 380 [which] may convert a query for the informational model into an SQL query for a relational database and an Xquery for an XML database” [Amaru, 0110]. The queries received by the query processor map to the “communications” of the claim, and the central model maps to the “standardized information model” of the claim. See also: [Amaru, 0189-0193].)
wherein the communications include information requests received from an external interface and information responses transmitted on the external interface; wherein the information requests relate to data associated with the controller; ([Amaru, 0091, 0110]: The queries on the central model received by the query processor map to the “information requests” of the claim, and the output queries for the physical data stores map to the “information responses” of the claim. The system has a “user interface” [Amaru, 0091], which maps to the “external interface” of the claim. The queries on the central model fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “relate[d] to data associated with the controller” as recited by the claim, with the “controller” being as mapped above.)
and translating, by the service platform, each of the information requests to a set of process variables of the legacy domain semantic model, ([Amaru, 0091]: As noted above, the query processor converts queries on the central model into queries for the physical data stores. This conversion maps to the “translating” recited by the claim, and the resulting queries for the physical data stores map to the “set of process variables” of the claim.)
and sending a request to the controller for obtaining information of the information request, ([Amaru, 0111]: Amaru indicates that the queries for the physical data stores are “passed on to one or more enterprise applications 390 for execution” [Amaru, 0111]. This query for the physical data store is the “request” of the claim, and the act of passing on the query maps to the “sending” operation of the claim.)
wherein the translating is based on the binding configuration. ([Amaru, 0091]: As noted above, the query processor acts on queries on the central model and uses the mappings to convert/translate these into queries on the physical data stores. In other words, the conversion/translating is “based on the binding configuration” as mapped above.)
Claims 12 inherits limitations from claim 8 and recites additional limitations which are substantially similar to those recited by claims 5, so it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Amaru in view of Alison LENNON et al. (US20040015783 A1, published 2004-01-22; hereafter “Lennon”).
Claim 2
Amaru discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It also discloses:
[The system of claim 1, wherein] the semantic binding engine and the adapter modules are deployed as a cloud based system ([Amaru, 0205]: Amaru discloses an embodiment of the invention having a “server-side architecture in which a client computer performs little of the required application logic, most of which is performed by a server computer” [Amaru, 0205]. This server-side architecture maps to the “cloud based system” of the claim.) accessing a plurality of binding configurations ([Amaru, 0068]: As noted above, Amaru discloses “mappings [which] identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. These mappings (observe the plural) map to the “plurality of binding configurations” of the claim.) associated with a plurality of respective autonomous systems; ([Amaru, 0093, 0196, 0199]: As under the parent claim, the enterprise information unification system maps to a “respective autonomous system” of the claim. Amaru also discloses a collaborative system [Amaru, 0196] in which “[l]ocal project builders 540 preferably operate on local copies of the central project” [Amaru, 0199]. The local copies of the enterprise information unification system map to the “plurality of respective autonomous systems” of the claim.) wherein the plurality of binding configurations are stored in the knowledge repository, ([Amaru, 0072]: The mappings of Amaru (which were mapped above to the “plurality of binding configurations” of the claim) are stored in the enterprise information unification system (which were mapped above to the “knowledge repository” of the claim). Indeed, Amaru indicates that “the information models and mappings and other data structures or instructions may be stored in physical memory (e.g. RAM or non-volatile storage) in such computer Systems” [Amaru, 0072].)
Amaru does not distinctly disclose:
wherein the modules are further comprising: a machine learning module for processing a series of binding configurations for refinement of the knowledge repository and to generate a ranking of likelihoods of binding proposals; wherein the semantic binding engine updates the standardized information model based on the knowledge repository and the ranking of likelihoods binding proposals.
Lennon is in the field of federated databases [Lennon, 0004] and discusses systems for integrating several databases in which some data may be “legacy” [Lennon, 0106-0107]. Moreover, Amaru in view of Lennon discloses:
wherein the modules are further comprising: a machine learning module for processing a series of binding configurations for refinement of the knowledge repository and to generate a ranking of likelihoods of binding proposals; wherein the semantic binding engine updates the standardized information model based on the knowledge repository and the ranking of likelihoods binding proposals. ([Lennon, figure 23, 0785, and 0797]: Lennon discloses “updat[ing] a data model” using a “recommendation module” which implements a “recommendation process” [Lennon, 0785] which generates a “ranked list of related data components” [Lennon, figure 23 element 2350] from a set of “related data components” [Lennon, figure 23 element 2340]. This process is described in further detail in [Lennon, 0797], where it is indicated that it is based on “confidence factor on the actual existence of the relationship” [Lennon, 0797]. In other words, the related data components of Lennon map to the “series of binding configurations”, and the ranked list of data components of Lennon maps to the “ranking of likelihood of binding proposals” and the “new ranking of binding proposals” of the claim. Updating the model maps to “refinement of the knowledge repository” and to “updat[ing] the information model” as recited by the claim. The recommendation module maps to the “machine learning module” of the claim. In the combination, Lennon’s recommendation module is incorporated into the enterprise information unification system of Amaru. The system after the central model has been updated using the recommendation module maps to the “refined knowledge repository” of the claim.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the information unification system of Amaru with aspects of the federated database system of Lennon because it allows achieving “more fluid data federations…, a situation which is clearly desirable in the environment of the Web where many heterogeneous data sources exist” [Weber, 0025].
Claim 3
Amaru discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It also discloses:
wherein the binding configuration is based on a user selection of a candidate node. ([Amaru, 0196]: Amaru discloses a method of “collaborate modeling, whereby multiple users generate a project including a central information model… and its peripherals, including inter alia mappings of physical data assets into the information model” [Amaru, 0196]. In this system, “[l]ocal project builders 540 preferably operate on local copies of the central project” [Amaru, 0199]. A mapping generated by a user in their local copy of the project maps to the “user selection of a candidate node” of the claim.)
Lennon is in the field of federated databases [Lennon, 0004] and discusses systems for integrating several databases in which some data may be “legacy” [Lennon, 0106-0107]. Moreover, Amaru in view of Lennon discloses:
[The system of claim 1, wherein the binding engine is further configured to:] generate a binding proposal of candidate nodes for a model instance of the standardized model sorted by likelihood according to algorithms of the binding engine; ([Lennon, figure 23, 0785, and 0797]: Lennon a “recommendation process” [Lennon, 0785] which generates a “ranked list of related data components” [Lennon, figure 23 element 2350]. This process is described in further detail in [Lennon, 0797], where it is indicated that it is based on “confidence factor on the actual existence of the relationship” [Lennon, 0797]. In other words, the ranked list of data components of Lennon maps to the “binding proposal of candidate nodes” of the claim, and the confidence factor to the “likelihood” of the claim.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the information unification system of Amaru with aspects of the federated database system of Lennon because it allows achieving “more fluid data federations… a situation which is clearly desirable in the environment of the Web where many heterogeneous data sources exist” [Weber, 0025].
Claim 4
Amaru in view of Lennon discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It also discloses:
[The system of claim 3, wherein the binding engine is further configured to:] generate a plurality of binding configurations, each binding configuration for a respective model instance, ([Amaru, 0068]: As noted above, Amaru discloses “mappings [which] identify constructs of the central model that correspond to constructs of the mapped schemas” [Amaru, 0068]. These mappings (observe the plural) map to the “plurality of binding configurations” of the claim. Either the schema of a physical data store or the central model can be regarded as the “respective model instance” of the claim.)
wherein the knowledge repository is further configured to store the plurality of binding configurations. ([Amaru, 0072]: The mappings of Amaru, which were mapped above to the “plurality of binding configurations” of the claim, are stored in the enterprise information unification system, which were mapped above to the “knowledge repository” of the claim. Indeed, Amaru indicates that “the information models and mappings and other data structures or instructions may be stored in physical memory (e.g. RAM or non-volatile storage) in such computer Systems” [Amaru, 0072].)
The same motivation to combine applies.
Claims 10-11 inherit limitations from claim 8 and recite additional limitations which are substantially similar to those recited by claims 3-4, respectively, so they are rejected by the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Amaru in view of David EDOJA (US20120260263A1, published 2012-10-11; hereafter “Edoja”).
Claim 6
Amaru discloses the elements of the parent claim(s). It does not distinctly disclose:
[The system of claim 1, further comprising:] an explorer component configured to extract process variable data from the controller, identify existing structure for the process variable data, and convert the legacy domain information model into the legacy domain semantic model.
Edoja is in the field of data analysis. Moreover, Amaru in view of Edoja discloses:
[The system of claim 1, further comprising:] an explorer component configured to extract process variable data from the controller, identify existing structure for the process variable data, and convert the legacy domain information model into the legacy domain semantic model. ([Edoja, 0048]: Edoja discloses a “processing module 132 [which] is configured to generate a semantic model and process generic data retrieved by the retrieving module 131 and generate analytics data… according to multiple rules and reference data” [Edoja, 0048]. The rules and/or reference data map to the “process variable data” and the “existing structure for the process variable” of the claim, and the processing module to the “explorer component” of the claim. In the combination, the generic data on which the processing module of Edoja is applied is the data from the physical data stores of Amaru, and the resulting semantic model is the schema for the physical data store, i.e., the “legacy domain semantic model” of the claim.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the information unification system of Amaru with the semantic model generator of Edoja since this would allow the information unification system of Amaru to work with legacy data that does not already have an existing schema or semantic model, thereby making the system more flexible and expansive.
Claims 13 inherits limitations from claim 6 and recites additional limitations which are substantially similar to those recited by claim 6, respectively, so it is rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shishir AGRAWAL whose telephone number is +1 703-756-1183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 08:30-14:30 Pacific Time.
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, Alexey SHMATOV can be reached on +1 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is +1 571-273-8300.
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 +1 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call +1 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or +1 571-272-1000.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights