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 .
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 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states the following:
. . . the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
Examiner finds the bolded limitations in the chart below recite an abstract idea. Examiner finds the remaining limitations are additional elements that do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See chart below for further analysis.
Abstract idea elements in bold;
Additional elements in italics
Examiner analysis of elements considered individually
Relevant MPEP sections
1. A data management system, comprising:
processing resources and storage resources provisioned on a cloud computing platform to implement a data management service, the processing resources configured to cause the data management system at least to:
These elements recite mere instructions to apply the exception because they recite generic computing components at a high level of generality.
Thus, these elements do not integrate the exception and do not recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(f).
Receive over a network connection a first Application Programming Interface (API) request from a client application to upload a data file in a row-based file format;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,
process a first request body
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the request.
2106.04(a)(2)(III)
of the first API request
This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of computer programming. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
to identify a pre-provisioned schema definition associated with the data file, wherein the pre-provisioned schema definition is specific to the data file indicates column information to construct one or more columns from data in the data file to transform the data file into a columnar file format
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the request and an evaluation/judgment as to which pre-provisioned schema definition is associated with the data file and whether the schema “indicates column information to construct one or more columns from data in the data file to transform the data file into a columnar format?
2106.04(a)(2)(III)
identify a cloud-based storage resource on the cloud computing platform to store the data file;
This element merely requires human evaluation and/judgment as to which resource to store the data file.
2106.04(a)(2)(III)
transmit over the network connection an API response to the client application with a resource identifier of the cloud-based storage resource;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recite the WURC computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,
receive over the network connection, a second API request from the client application to store the data file at the cloud-based storage resource;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recite the WURC computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
process a second request body
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the request.
2106.04(a)(2)(III)
of the second API request
This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of computer programming. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
to identify the data file;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the request and an evaluation as to what file is identified in the request.
2106.04(a)(2)(III)
and store the data file at the cloud-based storage resource along with the pre-provisioned schema definition linked to the data file as stored in the cloud-based storage resource
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recite the WURC computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing or retrieving information in memory thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice). As such, when the claim elements are considered as a whole and individually, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 are also rejected for the reasons given above for claim 1. Additionally, the preambles of claim 9 and 17 both recite mere instructions to apply the exception and thus do not integrate the exception or recite inventive concept.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons indicated below.
Abstract idea elements in bold
Additional elements in italics
Examiner analysis of elements considered individually
Relevant MPEP sections
2. The data management system of claim 1, wherein:
the row-based file format comprises a delimited file format.
This element merely describes the data being gathering, manipulated, and/or received.
As such, this element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recites the WURC computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
3. The data management system of claim 1, wherein:
the pre-provisioned schema definition is written in JavaScript object notation format within the first request body of the first API request.
This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of computer programming. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
4. The data management system of claim 1, wherein: the column information includes at least: a column name for a column; and a data type for the column.
This element merely describes the data being gathering, manipulated, and/or received.
As such, this element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recites the WURC computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
5. The data management system of claim 1, wherein:
the first API request comprises a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) GET request with the pre-provisioned schema included in a message body of the HTTP GET request; and
the second API request comprises a HTTP POST request with the data file included in a message body of the HTTP POST request.
This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of computer programming. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
6. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the processing resources are configured to further cause the data management system at least to:
extract the data file in the row-based file format from the cloud-based storage resource;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recites the WURC computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory and thus does not recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
extract the pre-provisioned schema definition associated with the data file from the cloud-based storage resource;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As such, this element fails to integrate the exception.
This element recites the WURC computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory and thus does not recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
transform the data file in the row-based file format into a columnar file format based on the pre-provisioned schema definition;
The element merely requires observation and evaluation of the schema and the row based file and an evaluation/judgment as to how to transform the row based file into a columnar file format based on the schema. Examiner finds this transformation can be practically performed by the human mind using pen and paper. See Applicant’s specification at Figs. 3A and 3B.
and
load the data file in the columnar file format to a cloud-based centralized repository.
This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use/technological environment of cloud storage. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
7. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the resource identifier comprise a uniform resource identifier of the cloud-based storage resource
This element generally links the abstract idea to the technological environment of cloud based storage resources. As such, it does not integrate the exception nor recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
8. The data management system of claim 7 wherein the processing resources are configured to further cause the data management system at least to: store the pre-provisioned schema definition in a container with the data file.
This element generally links the abstract idea to the technological environment of cloud based storage. As such, it does not integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
Claims 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 2-8.
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, when the claim elements above are considered as a whole and individually, claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues
As described in the background of the pending application, an organization may need to transfer data from legacy data storage to the cloud for larger consumption and usage (see [0002]). As shown in FIG. 1, for example, an organization (e.g., a company, health care organization, educational organization, governmental organization, etc.) may generate and/or collect a large volume of data stored in legacy data storage (e.g., data silos), and in some cases, the legacy data storage supports row-based file formats. To derive valuable insights and get a holistic view of the data, the organization may desire that the data be merged into a centralized repository. Thus, the organization may want to migrate the data from the legacy data storage to the cloud for improved consumption of the data (see [0032]).
Examiner finds the prior art of record teaches that cloud computing is conventional as of the filing date of this application. Examiner therefore finds it is not an improvement to technology. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues
The data management system of claim 1 allows for migration of the data to the cloud.
Examiner finds the prior art of record teaches that copying data to the cloud is conventional as of the filing date of this application. Examiner finds it is therefore not an improvement to technology. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues
More particularly, the system of claim 1 ingests a data file in a row-based file format, and also ingests a pre-provisioned schema definition specific to the data file. The pre-provisioned schema definition indicates column information to construct one or more columns from data in the data file to transform the data file into a columnar file format. A technical benefit is a schema may be defined for a data file indicating column information for certain columns of data that are of significance to data analysis, that may be difficult to automatically determine/detect, etc.
Applicant admits that determining a significant data column is not an “automatic” process. Examiner finds the decision to designate a particular column of data as “significant” is a manual, mental process that merely requires human evaluation and judgment. A mental process cannot be the basis of an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05. (“. . it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself . . . is not an improvement in technology”); and 2106.05(a) (“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”) As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues
In claim 1, an API is defined for ingesting a data file and a pre-provisioned schema definition associated with the data file. The system of claim 1 receives, over a network connection, a first API request from a client application to upload a data file, and processes a first request body of the first API request to identify a pre-provisioned schema definition associated with the data file. The system of claim 1 transmits, over the network connection, an API response to the client application with a resource identifier of the cloud-based storage resource. The system of claim 1 receives, over the network connection, a second API request from the client application to store the data file at the cloud-based storage resource, and processes a second request body of the second API request to identify the data file. The system of claim 1 stores the data file at the cloud-based storage resource along with the pre-provisioned schema definition linked to the data file as stored in the cloud-based storage resource. A technical benefit is the schema is uploaded in an API call and stored together with the data file so that other processes may locate and access the schema when processing the data file (see[0043 and 0048]).
The claimed invention does not reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
(emphasis added). Here, Applicant characterizes “so that other processes may locate and access the schema when processing the data file” as an “improvement” but Examiner finds this is actually a disclosed, unclaimed feature of the invention that reflects an improvement. That is, “so that other processes may locate and access the schema when processing the data file” reflects the disclosed improvement “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform.” Applicant does not have to explicitly recite “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform,” (see above) but Examiner finds the claims do have to reflect “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform.” For example Examiner finds “accessing the schema in a same object as the row based file” would reflect this improvement1. See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 58.
Applicant further argues
Thus, the Applicant submits that claim 1 as a whole provides improvements to the technical field of data management. The Office may argue that for data management in general, a schema may be determined for data. But, ingesting a file-specific schema along with the data file through an API, and storing the file-specific schema along with the data file is an improvement in the field. An organization, for example, can specify a schema per data file that is uploaded, and that schema is stored along with the data file. When the data file is extracted for transformation to another format, the schema may be extracted from the same location to indicate the desired column information for the transformation.
Again, these disclosed features reflect an improvement in technology, but they are not claimed. Applicant does not have to claim the “improvement” per se (i.e. “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform”), but Examiner finds the claimed invention does not reflect this improvement.
Examiner finds that the disclosed, but unclaimed feature of “accessing the schema in a same object as the row based file”, for example, would reflect the disclosed improvement of “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform.”
Applicant further argues
For example, assume that one data file could be transformed into columnar format having 10,000 columns, but the organization identified 8 columns of significance for later analysis. The organization may upload a schema with that data file indicating column information for those 8 columns, which is stored with the data file and extracted with the data file for transformation. In another example, assume that another data file could be transformed into columnar format having 6,000 columns, but the organization identified 12 columns of significance for later analysis. The organization may upload a schema with that data file indicating column information for those 12 columns, which is stored with the data file and is extracted with the data file for transformation. This gives the organization more control over how the data files are transformed, and makes subsequent analysis more efficient.
For at least these reasons, the Applicant submits that the pending claims are eligible under § 101.
This argument is not persuasive because the claimed invention does not reflect the disclosed improvement. Also, the claimed invention is not limited to embodiments where there are 10,000 or 6,000 columns with 8 or 12 columns of significance, for example. Examiner finds that the disclosed, but unclaimed feature of “accessing the schema in a same object as the row based file”, for example, would reflect the disclosed improvement of “the data file in columnar file format may be more efficiently analyzed by data analysis tools on the cloud computing platform.”
Applicant argues the cited art fails to teach or suggest none of the limitations in claim 1 except “identify a cloud-based storage resource on the cloud computing platform to store the data file.” See Applicant’s remarks at 10. Applicant further discusses the disclosed invention on pages 11-12. Applicant summarizes the disclosed invention on page 12.
Applicant further argues
To summarize the interaction of data collector 202 with the client application via the API, data collector 202 receives a first API request 602 to upload/store a data file 402, and processes a request body 610 of the first API request 602 to identify a schema 406 associated with the data file 402. Data collector 202 transmits an API response 604 to client application 620 with a resource identifier 612 of the cloud-based storage resource 420 for the data file 402. Data collector 202 receives a second API request 606 from the client application 620 to store the data file 402 at the cloud-based storage resource 420, and processes a request body 614 of the second API request 606 to identify the data file 402. Data collector 202 then stores the schema 406 at the cloud-based storage resource 420 linked to the data file 402 as stored in cloud-based storage resource 420.
The combination of the cited art fails to suggest this type of interaction via an API. More particularly, the combination fails to suggest a first API request from a client application that includes a schema for a data file, an API response to the client application that includes a resource ID of a cloud-based storage resource 420 identified for the data file 402, and a second API request from the client application that includes the data file.
Although the Office can generally point to the term "API" in the references, there is no suggestion of an interaction via an API as recited in claim 1 (e.g., schema in first API request and data file in second API request).
The claimed invention does not recite “interaction via an API.” Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant further argues
In the rejection, the Office alleges that Ranganathan teaches receiving a first API request from a client application, and processing a request body of the first API request to identify a schema for a data file (see pages 16-17 of the Office action).
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the previous rejection. The previous office action indicated Ranganathan failed to explicitly teach “to identify a schema associated with the data file,” but indicated this element was obvious in view of SR. See page 16 and 21 of Office action. Ranganathan teaches a schema that indicates column information to construct one of more columns from data in the data file in para. 39. See previous office action on page 16.
Applicant further argues The Applicant respectfully disagrees. Although the Office points to [0033] in Ranganathan as discussing a "schema",
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the previous rejection. The previous office action indicated Ranganathan failed to explicitly teach “to identify a schema associated with the data file,” but indicated this element was obvious in view of SR. See page 16 and 21 of Office action. Ranganathan teaches a schema that indicates column information to construct one of more columns from data in the data file in paragraph 39. See previous office action on page 16.
Applicant further argues “there is no suggestion that the schema is received in a request body of a first API request from a client application as in claim 1.”
Examiner disagrees. As indicated in the previous office action,
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “receive a first Application Programming Interface (API) request from a client application to store a data file in a row-based file format; process a first request body of the first API request” in Ranganathan to include “to identify a schema associated with the data file” as taught by SR. The motivation would have been to manipulate data that use different and new schemas (compatibility and interoperability). See, e.g. SR pp. 1-2 (seven bullet points).
See previous office action at page 21-22.
Applicant further argues
Further, the Office alleges that Ranganathan teaches transmitting an API response to the client application with a resource identifier of a cloud-based storage resource (see page 18 of the Office action). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office points to [0030] in Ranganathan in this rejection discussing a query planner 410 that provides plan fragments to a query coordinator 420. However, query planner 410 and query coordinator 420 are part of a data node or slave node (see FIG. 4 of Ranganathan), and there is no suggestion that an API response is sent to a client application (i.e., the same client application that sent the first API request) as in claim 1.
The suggestion comes at least from paragraph 20 of Ranganathan cited in the previous office action. Ranganathan suggests a JDBC/ODBC client to connect to resources via API. See previous office action on page 18. If a client uses an API to send a request, then it stands to reason that same client would receive an API response. To argue it would not be suggested to one skilled in the art that a client would receive a response from its own API request is to ignore the teachings of Ranganathan. This argument also vastly underestimates the level of ordinary skill in the computing arts.
Applicant further argues
Further, the Office alleges that Ranganathan teaches receiving a second API request from the client application, and processing a request body of the second API request to identify the data file (see pages 19-20 of the Office action). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office points to [0039] in Ranganathan discussing conversion of a data file to another format. However, there is no suggestion in this paragraph that a second API request from the client application includes the data file as in claim 1.
Examiner finds the client’s second API request is to save the data in the target format. The suggestion to perform the save via another API request is in para. 20 of Ranganathan. Additionally, SR teaches a second API request. See previous office action on p. 21, As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Thus, the Office has failed to show that the cited art suggests an API interaction as in claim 1 (e.g., a first API request from a client application that includes a schema for a data file, an API response to the client application that includes a resource ID of a cloud-based storage resource identified for the data file, and a second API request from the client application that includes the data file).
Claim 1 does not recite an “API interaction.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Further, the combination fails to suggest that an ingested data file is stored at a cloud- based storage resource along with the pre-provisioned schema definition linked to the data file as in claim 1.
Ranganathan actually teaches away from storing a schema and a data file together at a cloud-based storage resource. Ranganathan states that "one or more associated schemas comprising information on file formats in which data is stored...are saved separately in the Hive metastore 114" (see [0033] with emphasis added).
This argument is not persuasive. Saving data and a schema separately does not teach away from storing a data file “along with” the schema that is linked to the data file as stored in the cloud-based storage resource. There is nothing in Ranganathan that teaches the schema and the data file cannot be linked together as well as saved separately in cloud storage. Stated another way, linking two files together does not preclude them from being saved “separately.” Also, Applicant failed to address the combination of Ranganathan and SR and failed to address any of the teachings of SR.
Examiner agrees, however, that the prior art of record fails to teach “store the data file and the schema at the cloud-based storage resource along with the pre-provisioned schema definition linked to the data file as stored in the cloud-based storage resource.” As such, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner finds amending the independent claims to recite “accessing the schema in a same object as the row based file” would reflect an improvement disclosed in the specification (see above), and thus would cause claims 1-20 to integrate the exception and thus recite patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
1 Examiner finds a claim element such as “so that other processes may locate and access the schema when processing the data file” would not have patentable weight because it would reflect intended use. Also, the word “may” indicates an optimal limitation.
Prosecution Insights