Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. an abstract idea ((mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible, as the claim still recites and is directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorensen et al al US 10536520 in further view of DiScala M. et al Automatic Generation of Normalized Relational Schemas from Nested Key-Value Data. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, 2016.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Firmli et al, CSR++: A Fast, Scalable, Update-Friendly Graph Data Structure, OPODIS 2020
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Prahlad et al US 20090248762
Claims 4,5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Jiang, et al Holistic primary key and foreign key detection, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2019
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 10/29/2025 have been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 have been amended
Re Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more: the amendments in independent claim have not made the claim eligible. The added limitations do not change the nature of the claim, which remains directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more (see 35 USC 101 analysis below). The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Specifically to the argument that intercepting a data request can not be performed in the mind, the Examiner points out that the specific limitation has not been considered a mental process. Instead, it is analyzed as an additional element. More precisely, intercepting requests over a network , constitutes data receiving or data gathering, MPEP §2106.05(d); The additional elements of data gathering are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). In Step 2A Prong 2 it was found that it did not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor it effects an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception. In Step 2B the additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination - and with claim as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07). The additional elements of data gathering [A] are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering) were found by the courts to be WURC.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the independent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection under U.S.C. 103 is made with respect to independent claims 1, 11, 20. The newly added limitations require application of different prior art than that previously relied upon. Accordingly, the rejection is properly made final in accordance with MPEP 706.07(a). In addition, dependent claims which depend from the newly amended claims are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art. Because the basis and the combination of references has changed, these rejections are likewise new grounds of rejection and are properly made final in view of the amendments.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-10 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes, claims 11-19 directed to a system, which falls under the statutory category of machines, and claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 (representative of claims 11, 20, which have substantially similar limitations) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 7, 8) recite an abstract idea, shown in italics in the following:
[A] intercepting the one or more datastore requests over a network connecting the plurality of production datastores with a requesting device; and storing the one or more datastore requests in persistent storage. ;
[B] identifying, by one or more processors, and using the one or more datastore requests, one or more invisible foreign-key relationships between respective pairs of tables in the plurality of production datastores;
[C] generating, by the one or more processors, a directed graph, wherein each of the plurality of production datastores is represented by a respective node of the directed graph and each identified invisible foreign-key relationship is represented by a respective edge between a first node and a second node of a respective pair of tables corresponding to the invisible foreign-key relationship;
[D] topologically ordering, by the one or more processors, the directed graph; and
[E] populating, by the one or more processors and using the ordered graph, the test environment with the test data, the test data satisfying the identified one or more invisible foreign-key relationships, and
[F} wherein a first table associated with a first production datastore in the test environment includes test data generated from a corresponding second table associated with a second production datastore in the test environment.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 11, 20) recites: identifying a non-explicit relationship between pairs of tables [B]; generating a directed graph with production datastores as nodes, and identified non-explicit relationships as edges [C] ordering the graph [D], which, based on the claim language and in view of the specification, can be summarized as a process of generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding the identification of non-explicit relationships, and generation of the graph. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Graphs, modes, topological ordering are mathematical concepts (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20 ) recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements in [A], [C], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Element [A], intercepting requests over a network , constitutes data receiving or data gathering, MPEP §2106.05(d); The additional elements of data gathering are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Element [E] reciting using the ordered graph to populate test environment constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Element [F] further refines the [E] and is of similar nature.
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements [A]. [E] do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative also of claim 11, 20) does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07). The additional elements of data gathering [A] are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering), which the courts found WURC.
The additional elements in [E],[F] amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to data gathering and instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 2 (representative of claim 12, which has substantially similar limitations) further recites:
[A] storing, by the one or more processors, the one or more datastore requests in persistent storage.
The additional elements of data manipulation and storing [A] are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, claim elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 2, 12 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), representative of claim 13, which has substantially similar limitations, further recites:
[A] wherein intercepting the one or more datastore requests comprises intercepting only read requests for reading request results from the plurality of production datastores.
The additional elements of data gathering (of the requests) [A] are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, claim elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 3, 13 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), representative of claim 14 (dependent on claim 12), which has substantially similar limitations, further recites: wherein identifying, by the one or more processors, and using the one or more datastore requests, the one or more invisible foreign-key relationships, comprises:
[A] executing the one or more datastore requests to generate one or more request results, wherein each request result corresponds to a record of a respective table with a primary-key identifier stored in a column of the respective table; and
[B] comparing, for a first request result, the primary-key identifier for the first request result with primary-key identifiers in other tables, and for each matched primary-key identifier, identifying an invisible foreign-key relationship between the table storing the first result and the table storing the result corresponding to the matched primary-key identifier.
The claim elements reciting comparing key identifiers, matching, and identifying relationships ([B]) which covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Thus, claim elements recite another abstract idea.
The additional elements in this dependent claim ([A]) - – data gathering and manipulation ([B]) and storing ( storing the results in [A]) are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g). See also MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
For situations substantially similar to those here, these were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, are not directed to any specific improvement of the claim, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, claims 4, 14 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1 ), representative of claim 16 (dependent on claim 11 ) which has substantially similar limitations, further recites: wherein :
[A] wherein the directed graph comprises a progress state table, and
[B] wherein topologically sorting the directed graph comprises updating, for each node, the progress state table with a name of a datastore represented by the node and a respective level in the ordering for the datastore.
The additional elements [A], [B], amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea to generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 6, 16 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 7 (dependent on claim 6 ), representative of claim 17 (dependent on claim 16 ) which has substantially similar limitations, further recites: wherein populating the test environment data comprises:
[A] traversing the ordered graph; and
[B] populating data across tables for each node concurrently, in accordance with the updated levels in the progress state table.
The additional elements [A], [B], amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and data storing are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g), which was found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea to generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 7, 17 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 8 (dependent on claim 6 ), representative of claim 18 (dependent on claim 16 ) which has substantially similar limitations, further recites: wherein populating the test environment comprises:
[A] populating the test environment with the test data using the progress state table of the directed graph to satisfy the one or more identified invisible foreign-key relationships.
The additional elements [A] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and data storing are insignificant extra-solution activities, MPEP 2106.05(g), which was found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea to generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 8, 18 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 9 (dependent on claim ), representative of claim 19 (dependent on claim 1) which has substantially similar limitations, further recites: wherein the method further comprises:
[A] identifying a circular dependency between two or more production datastores, according to the topological sorting; and
[B] replacing nodes corresponding with the two or more production datastores with a composite node, the composite node connected to one or more nodes according to edges for nodes to the two or more production datastores.
The claim elements reciting identifying dependency according to topological sorting ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually (distinguishing between two graph node sets, computation of probabilities) . Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. Thus, claim elements recite another abstract idea.
The additional elements [A] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea to generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 9, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), representative for claim 15 (dependent on claim 14) and claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), further recite:
[A5] wherein the test data comprises at least a portion of the one or more request results.
[A10] wherein the directed graph is a directed acyclic graph (DAG).
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements –number of flight paths; transmission loss – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (generating an ordered graph with edges representing identified non-explicit relationships between node pairs), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 5, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped, and a single rejection analysis is performed, on a representative claim for the group.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520.
Regarding claim 1, representative of claims 11 and claim 20, which have similar limitations, Bruno discloses a method for populating test data in a test environment for a plurality of production datastores comprising a plurality of tables { [0001] This invention is related to databases, and more specifically, to generating synthetic databases for testing purposes }, the method comprising:
populating, by the one or more processors and using the ordered graph, the test environment with the test data, the test data satisfying the identified one or more invisible foreign-key relationships, wherein a first table associated with a first production datastore in the test environment includes test data generated from a corresponding second table associated with a second production datastore in the test environment. { see at least [0062] Evaluation of a DGL program can proceed as follows. In general, a DGL program can be seen as a directed acyclic graph (DAG).[0070] A thin layer on top of DGL can be provided that allows annotating a SQL DDL CREATE TABLE statement to additionally specify how to populate the created table. [0079] The resulting data generator executable 908 is then run to create and populate a database.; [0101] A generator is used that populates a fact table R with a foreign-key to a dimension table S.}
Bruno, though disclosing use of foreign-key relationships between tables, does not explicitly teach identifying invisible or implicit foreign-key relationships. However Zhou discloses:
identifying, by the one or more processors, and using the one or more datastore requests, one or more invisible foreign-key relationships between respective pairs of tables in the plurality of production datastores { [summary of invention, 11th sentence] the foreign key constraint relation is defined as one of the following three constraint relation: foreign key constraint relation, transferring foreign key constraint relationship directly, implicit outer key constraint relation } invisible foreign-key relationship in BRI and in view of the specification (where the word implicit is used) is interpreted as the implicit other key constraint relation.
generating, by the one or more processors, a directed graph, wherein each of the plurality of production datastores is represented by a respective node of the directed graph and each identified invisible foreign-key relationship is represented by a respective edge between a first node and a second node of a respective pair of tables corresponding to the invisible foreign-key relationship;
topologically ordering, by the one or more processors, the directed graph { [Abstract] data table as the node, the constraint relation to outer key of the data table is a directed edge between two nodes, generating a directed graph; converting the directed graph into a directed graph of adjacency matrix, input a directed graph adjacency matrix and effective distance of node to be added; the node of the adjacency matrix for path searching, obtaining all node paths generating path set}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno with Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of extending the data tables and data records that can be used, yet which miss explicit foreign-keys, while the relationships are otherwise expressed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno evidently discloses the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph. Zhou is merely relied upon to illustrate the identification of implicit foreign-key relationships, and using those in an ordered graph. As best understood by Examiner, since using of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and identifying implicit foreign-key relationships, and using those in an ordered graph are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno and Zhou would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno in view of Zhou.
Bruno/Zhou do not disclose, however Sorensen discloses
intercepting one or more datastore requests over a network connecting the plurality of production datastores with a requesting device {see at least [Claim 1] intercepting, by a storage gateway at a client network, read requests and write requests directed to a primary data store on the client network from one or more processes on the client network… wherein the storage gateway is separate from the primary data store and is implemented by one or more computing device on the client network comprising one or more hardware processors and memory; for the read requests, passing, by the storage gateway, the intercepted read requests to the primary data store at the client network}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou with Sorenson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of identifying foreign-keys relationships and preparing the test tables without interrupting the regular traffic. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhou evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data. Sorenson is merely relied upon to illustrate interception over the network. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data and obtaining it over the network and storing it are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou and Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno in view of Zhou in further view of Sorenson.
Regarding claim 10, Bruno Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno further discloses
wherein the directed graph is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). {[0016] FIG. 4A illustrates a diagram of a simple DGL (Data Generation Language) program and corresponding DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph)}
Regarding claims 2, 12 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of independent claims. Sorenson further discloses
storing the one or more datastore requests in persistent storage. {[Claim 1] i … wherein the storage gateway is separate from the primary data store and is implemented by one or more computing device on the client network comprising one or more hardware processors and memory; for the read requests, passing, by the storage gateway, the intercepted read requests to the primary data store at the client network}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen with further teachings of Sorenson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of identifying foreign-keys relationships and preparing the test tables without interrupting the regular traffic, and storing the information to be used at the right moment and again when needed, since traffic could occur at a higher speed than preparation of the test database Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data. Sorenson is merely relied upon to illustrate interception over the network and the storing. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data and obtaining it over the network and storing it are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen and Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Zhou further discloses
wherein the directed graph comprises a progress state table, and wherein topologically sorting the directed graph comprises updating, for each node, the progress state table with a name of a datastore represented by the node and a respective level in the ordering for the datastore. { [Preferably said module comprises ] a second generating unit, for a certain node 0 with the degree of adjacency matrix starting from traversing the other node obtains the route set… searching subunit for searching becase starting traversal searching as the starting pointing to the edge node; first judging subunit for judging whether the node is accessed, if it is accessed, then marking the node, and returns the searching unit; if it has not been accessed, then enters the traversing unit;} wherein the directed graph comprises a progress state table interpreted as adjacency matrix; and wherein topologically sorting the directed graph comprises updating, for each node, the progress state table with a name of a datastore represented by the node and a respective level in the ordering for the datastore the updating for each mode the progress table interpreted as the marking of the node if it is accessed (nodes are traversed in order).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen with further elements of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of keeping track of the progress while performing the operations in order. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and having it in topological order. Further elements of Zhou are merely relied upon to illustrate details of keeping track of the order. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph, ordering the graph and keeping track of the order are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen.
Regarding Claim 8, 18 Bruno Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Zhou further discloses
populating the test environment with the test data using the progress state table of the directed graph to satisfy the one or more identified invisible foreign-key relationships { [Preferably said module comprises ] a second generating unit, for a certain node 0 with the degree of adjacency matrix starting from traversing the other node obtains the route set… searching subunit for searching becase starting traversal searching as the starting pointing to the edge node; first judging subunit for judging whether the node is accessed, if it is accessed, then marking the node, and returns the searching unit; if it has not been accessed, then enters the traversing unit; [summary of invention, 11th sentence] the foreign key constraint relation is defined as one of the following three constraint relation: foreign key constraint relation, transferring foreign key constraint relationship directly, implicit outer key constraint relation; [Abstract] transmits the data table stores different data nodes; [Summary of Invention] S20 input data table to be stored, with an effective distance corresponding foreign key constraint relation between nodes to a directed graph data model;}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen with further elements of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of keeping track of the progress while performing the operations in order and update tables accordingly. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhou evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and having it in topological order and keeping track of order. Further elements of Zhou are merely relied upon to illustrate populating the tables accordingly. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph, ordering the graph and keeping track of the order and populating tables accordingly are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen and further elements of Zhou would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorensen et al al US 10536520 in further view of DiScala M. et al Automatic Generation of Normalized Relational Schemas from Nested Key-Value Data. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, 2016.
Regarding Claim 9, 19 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen does not disclose however DiScala discloses
identifying a circular dependency between two or more production datastores, according to the topological sorting; and replacing nodes corresponding with the two or more production datastores with a composite node, the composite node connected to one or more nodes according to edges for nodes to the two or more production datastores. {DiScala [Section 3.1.4.] This process includes a schema generation algorithm that discovers relationships across the attributes of the denormalized datasets in order to organize those attributes into relational tables. It further includes a matching algorithm that discovers sets of attributes that represent overlapping entities and merges those sets together. When the input is a directed acyclic graph (DAG), however, a linear time solution exists. Although we cannot assume that the phase 1 dependency graphs will be DAGs, the transitive nature of functional dependencies allows us to assume that the cycles in the graph will result from bidirectional dependencies between pairs of attributes as shown in Figure 4(b)…[Section 2 third column]. our use of functional dependencies allows us to compress the input dataset through deduplication} Circular dependency between two or more production datastores, according to the topological sorting; is interpreted as the dependency graphs with cycles in the graph resulting from bidirectional dependencies. Replacing nodes corresponding with the two or more production datastores with a composite node, the composite node connected to one or more nodes according to edges for nodes to the two or more production datastores in BRI is interpreted as compress the input dataset through deduplication.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou with DiScala. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of being able to address tables with circular (inter)dependencies by transforming them in a DAG which can be traversed in order. One should note this is a common practice to POSITA, referred to in common terms as using junction tables or bridge tables, replacing tables with such dependencies with a singular combined table. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph. DiScalan is merely relied upon to illustrate transforming any cyclic parts of the graph in acyclic. As best understood by Examiner, since building a directed graph and transforming parts of a graph to acyclic are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou and Sorensen and DiScala would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen in further view of DiScala.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Firmli et al, CSR++: A Fast, Scalable, Update-Friendly Graph Data Structure, OPODIS 2020
Regarding Claim 7, 17 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen does not disclose however Firmli discloses:
traversing the ordered graph; and {[Section 2, line 20] This separation allows for quick traversals over the graph structure}
populating data across tables for each node concurrently, in accordance with the updated levels in the progress state table. { [Section 3, 3rd line] csr++ enables fast concurrent accesses to the main graph data (vertex and edge tables) and stores additional graph data, such as reverse edges, user-defined keys, and vertex and edge properties.} In BRI populating data across tables for each node concurrently, in accordance with the updated levels in the progress state table is interpreted as concurrent access to vertexes/tables, nodes, and storing (in vertexes/tables) the additional data, such as vertex properties.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen with Firmly. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of speed enabled by multiple processors and concurrency, so multiple tables can be updated simultaneously. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of a directed graph to update tables. Firmli is merely relied upon to illustrate transforming any cyclic parts of the graph in acyclic. As best understood by Examiner, since using a directed graph and updating graph nodes concurrently are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen and Firmli would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno / Zhou/Sorensen in further view of Firmli.
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Prahlad et al US 20090248762
Regarding Claim 3 (13) Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson does not disclose, however Prahlad discloses
wherein intercepting the one or more datastore requests comprises intercepting only read requests for reading request results from the plurality of production datastores { [Claim1] method for accessing electronic data, the method comprising: intercepting a read request for electronic data}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson with Prahlad. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of simplifying the interception, saving time and power, since as recognized in the specification a write request will almost always be preceded by a read request. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhao, Sorenson evidently discloses obtaining the request. Sorenson is merely relied upon to restrict to obtaining to read request. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request and obtaining only the read request are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen and Prahlad would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno in view of Zhou, Sorenson in further view of Prahlad .
Claims 4,5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Jiang, et al Holistic primary key and foreign key detection, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2019
Regarding Claim 4, 14 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson do not explicitly disclose, however Jiang discloses:
executing the one or more datastore requests to generate one or more request results, wherein each request result corresponds to a record of a respective table with a primary-key identifier stored in a column of the respective table; and comparing, for a first request result, the primary-key identifier for the first request result with primary-key identifiers in other tables, and for each matched primary-key identifier, identifying an invisible foreign-key relationship between the table storing the first result and the table storing the result corresponding to the matched primary-key identifier. { [Abstract] Primary keys (PKs) and foreign keys (FKs) are important elements of relational schemata in various applications, such as query optimization and data integration. However, in many cases, these constraints are unknown or not documented. Detecting them manually is time consuming and even infeasible in large-scale datasets. We study the problem of discovering primary keys and foreign keys automatically and propose an algorithm to detect both, namely Holistic Primary Key and Foreign Key Detection (HoPF). [3.2] The dependency between primary key and foreign key is obvious, because the righthand side of a foreign key must be a primary key. Although each table may have multiple alternative keys, we assume only one of them is the true primary key. In this work, we use only minimal UCCs for two reasons: 1) the proposed PK features (see details in Section 4) always prefer the minimal UCCs than their non-minimal supersets; 2) the complete set of UCCs (including both minimal and non-minimal UCCs) could contain exponentially more UCCs than the minimal counterpart, because each column combination subsuming a UCC is also a valid UCC.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson with Jiang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of simplifying the interception, saving time and power, since as recognized in the specification a write request will almost always be preceded by a read request. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhao, Sorenson evidently discloses obtaining the request, identifying implicit keys. Jiang is primarily relied upon to be very explicit about the foreign-key being searched in columns, in addition to the other elements disclosed. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request and obtaining only the read request identifying keys and searching for keys in columns are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen and Jiang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno in view of Zhou, Sorenson in further view of Jiang .
Regarding Claims 5, 15 Bruno/Zhou/Sorensen/Jiang disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, further discloses
wherein the test data comprises at least a portion of the one or more request results. { [0111] First, define a temporary column tmpNat ion which consists of the nations of the corresponding orders' customers. Then, define l_suppkey with a Query iterator that uses the extended SQL CROSS APPLY and newId operators. CROSS APPLY invokes a table-valued function for each row in the outer table expression and returns a unified result set out of all of the partial table-valued results.} In BRI, at least a portion of the one or more request results is interpreted as partial table-valued results.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11755462 B2 Test Data Generation For Automatic Software Testing
CN 102200944 A Test Environment Cloning Method And System For ERP System
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188