DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having Application No. 18/111,379 filed on 02/17/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/17/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 02/17/2023 and 02/06/2026 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aashi Manglik (US-12499599-B1).
As per claim 1, Manglik teaches “A computer-implemented method for performing semantic matching in a data fabric, the method comprising”:
“accessing metadata and master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42);
“enriching the metadata with the master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42));
“populating knowledge graphs with the metadata enriched with the master data,” (figs. 4D-4F, 6B, 8B-8C, col. 24 lines 43-66);
“generating embeddings by a multi-layer graph neural network based on the knowledge graphs of the metadata enriched with the master data,” (figs. 5 and 6B, col. 24 lines 43-63, col. 25 lines 38-53, col. 29 lines 4-11), col. 29 lines 25-36; and
“performing semantic matching of data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,” (figs. 8B and 8C, col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37, col. 25 lines 45-53).
As per claim 3, Manglik further shows “generating a visualization of results of the performing of the semantic matching of the data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,’ (figs. 8B and 8C, col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
As per claim 5, Manglik further shows “wherein the semantic matching comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of column matching, row matching and concept matching,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
As per claim 7, Manglik further shows “wherein the knowledge graphs populated with the metadata enriched with the master data comprise heterogenous knowledge graphs,’ ((figs. 4D-4F, 6B, 8B-8C, col. 24 lines 43-66)).
As per claim 8, Manglik teaches “A computer program product for performing semantic matching in a data fabric, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for accessing metadata and master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42);
“enriching the metadata with the master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42));
“populating knowledge graphs with the metadata enriched with the master data,” (figs. 4D-4F, 6B, 8B-8C, col. 24 lines 43-66));
“generating embeddings by a multi-layer graph neural network based on the knowledge graphs of the metadata enriched with the master data,’ (figs. 5 and 6B, col. 24 lines 43-63, col. 25 lines 38-53, col. 29 lines 4-11, col. 29 lines 25-36); and
“performing semantic matching of data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37, col. 25 lines 45-53).
As per claim 10, Manglik further shows “wherein the program code further comprises the programming instructions for:
generating a visualization of results of the performing of the semantic matching of the data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,” (figs. 8B and 8C, col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
As per claim 12, Manglik further shows “wherein the semantic matching comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of column matching, row matching and concept matching,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
As per claim 14, Manglik further shows “wherein the knowledge graphs populated with the metadata enriched with the master data comprise heterogenous knowledge graphs,” (figs. 4D-4F, 6B, 8B-8C, col. 24 lines 43-66).
As per claim 15, Manglik teaches “A system, comprising”:
“a memory for storing a computer program for performing semantic matching in a data fabric,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37, col. 25 lines 45-53); and
a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program comprising:
accessing metadata and master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42);
“enriching the metadata with the master data,” (col. 24 lines 30-42);
“populating knowledge graphs with the metadata enriched with the master data,” (figs. 4D-4F, 6B, 8B-8C, col. 24 lines 43-66);
“generating embeddings by a multi-layer graph neural network based on the knowledge graphs of the metadata enriched with the master data,” (figs. 5 and 6B, col. 24 lines 43-63, col. 25 lines 38-53, col. 29 lines 4-11, col. 29 lines 25-36); and
“performing semantic matching of data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37, col. 25 lines 45-53).
As per claim 17, Manglik further shows “wherein the program instructions of the computer program further comprise:
generating a visualization of results of the performing of the semantic matching of the data assets in the data fabric using the embeddings,’ (figs. 8B and 8C, col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
As per claim 19, Manglik further shows “wherein the semantic matching comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of column matching, row matching and concept matching,” (col. 24 lines 64-col. 25 lines 37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aashi Manglik (US-12499599-B1) in view of Robert Bismuth (US-20230107344-A1).
As per claim 4, Manglik teaches “A computer implemented method for performing semantic matching in a data fabric”.
Manglik does not appear to expressly disclose “wherein the data assets in the data fabric comprise tables in a database or datasets in a data catalog’.
Bismuth, however, teaches look up tables indicative of data locations for all dataset records managed by compute node [0147].
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (a compute node may be implemented independent, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of Manglik with the teaching of Bismuth by the data assets in the tables which help improve organization, flexibility, and maintainability.
As per claim 11, Manglik teaches “A computer program product for performing semantic matching in a data fabric”.
Manglik does not appear to expressly disclose “wherein the data assets in the data fabric comprise tables in a database or datasets in a data catalog’.
Bismuth, however, teaches look up tables indicative of data locations for all dataset records managed by compute node [0147].
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (a compute node may be implemented independent, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of Manglik with the teaching of Bismuth by the data assets in the tables which help improve organization, flexibility, and maintainability.
As per claim 18, Manglik teaches “A system, comprising a memory for storing a computer program for performing semantic matching in a data fabric”.
Manglik does not appear to expressly disclose “wherein the data assets in the data fabric comprise tables in a database or datasets in a data catalog’.
Bismuth, however, teaches look up tables indicative of data locations for all dataset records managed by compute node [0147].
Accordingly, in the same field of endeavor, (a compute node may be implemented independent, etc..), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the method of Manglik with the teaching of Bismuth by the data assets in the tables which help improve organization, flexibility, and maintainability.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
May 05, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights