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 .
Reopening of Prosecution after Appeal Brief
2. In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 06/09/2026 PROSECUTION IS HEREBY
REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the
following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply
under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed
by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and
appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth
in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant
must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by
signing below:
Response to Appeal Brief Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103
3. Appellant arguments, filed 06/-9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Appellant argues the Examiner has interpreted the claims outside of their broadest reasonable scope and has failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103
Examiner respectfully agrees
Appellant secondly argues that the applied documents whether viewed individually or in combination are missing limitation of rejected claims 1 – 20, highlighting in particular receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of at least one blocker of the plurality of blockers
Examiner respectfully agrees
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, Allouche et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche and Smith et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2007/0094377) hereinafter Smith
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
4. 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.
5. 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 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claim 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of Allouche et a., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche and in further view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya
Regarding claim 1 Purohit teaches a computing system (Fig. 1A computer system [0008]) comprising: a memory; (memory (RAM) 620, [0066])and a processor (a processor [0066]) configured to: load a schema (XML parser 150 first loads into memory all the schema structures [0058]) of a data system (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system” into memory, (into memory. [0058]) the schema (schema structures [0058]) comprising at least data types, names, and locations or paths to data stored within schema (Schema 180 represents external data (typically, provided
in the form of a file) that specifies the structure of XML data 170. In particular, schema 180 specifies the tags which; are required/optional, the data type of the values associated with the tags, and the hierarchy of the tags (the child tags that can be contained in a tag), etc. of XML data 170 [0030]) the data system; (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system”
Purohit does not fully disclose present a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; process at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system; identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of at least one blocker of the plurality of blockers; define a query that comprises instructions for extracting data from the data system and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data; and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system and transmit the script to a software application.
Sitrick teaches present a user interface to a user, (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) the user interface (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) displaying information for a predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) process at least one user input(ABS., user input) (FIGS. 1A & 1B user input of new events [0113], [0114]) the at least one user input (ABS., user input) (FIGS. 1A & 1B user input of new events [0113], [0114]) comprising at least a selection of an event subset (That is, in accordance with the present invention, the events that can be selected to make up the selected set can comprise less than all the events between the first event and the last event within an ordering of the entry order of input. [0080]) from the predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, (At least one said Edit Event is selected to create a selected set of Edit Events comprising a selected combined group. [0056]) that occur within a process supported by the data (representative of a defined edit made relative to the presentation of the document at a respective defined location relative to the presentation of the document, responsive to a user input. [0056]) from the data system; (the system [0182])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit to incorporate the teachings of Sitrick whereby present a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; process at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system. By doing so Event storage stores all event content data representative of all changes and all events. The event content data is logically processed and its storage is structured and mapped so as to permit selection of a selected grouping( s) of selected events. Sitrick [0009]
Allouche teaches identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging,
changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” that prevents the plurality of events(workflows to be performed during well testing period [0091]) such as “plurality of events” ; from completing (in some examples, the operator is interrupted from performing a planned task to perform other task(s) based on the unexpected event(s). [0024]) receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, (The example workflow adjuster 814 of FIG. 8 applies one or more workflow adjustment rules 816 to adjust the workflow(s) 140. The example adjustment rule(s) 816 can be defined by one or more user inputs and/or based on historical data. [0110]) of at least one blocker ((e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or unplanned event(s)), [0110]) of the plurality of blockers; (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging, changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” define a query that comprises instructions for extracting data (The example workflow adjuster 814 of FIG. 8 applies one or more workflow adjustment rules 816 to adjust the workflow(s) 140. The example adjustment rule(s) 816 can be defined by one or more user inputs and/or based on historical data [0110]) from the data system (system [0025]) and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data; (The example adjustment rule(s) 816 include
instructions as to how the workflow adjuster 814 should adjust the workflow(s) 140 based on the reason(s) for the adjustment(s) (e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or
unplanned event(s)), [0110] )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick to incorporate the teachings of Allouche whereby identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of at least one blocker of the plurality of blockers; define a query that comprises instructions for extracting data from the data system and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data. By doing so the instructions cause the machine to selectively adjust at least one of the first workflow to generate a first adjusted workflow or a second
workflow to generate a second adjusted workflow based on a notice indicative of an unplanned event at the well. The second workflow is to be associated with a second user or a well test device. Allouche [0007]
Acharya teaches and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system (At operation 304, the application-provisioning framework 110 retrieves an application-provisioning blueprint document from data storage ( e.g., from the metadata storage 118) in response to receiving the provisioning request at operation 302, where the application-provisioning
blueprint document lists one or more database objects, which may be database objects that are to be provisioned for use in connection with the requested application in the customer account 200. [0046]) (generate a script that includes one or more grant commands associated with the provisioning of the application, [0059]) such as “query based on the schema of the data system” and transmit the script to a software application ( transmit the script to the authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Acharya whereby and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system and transmit the script to a software application. By doing so an application-provisioning framework for database platforms can be implemented. Acharya [0014]
Regarding claim 17 Purohit teaches a computer-readable medium (computer readable storage medium [0071])comprising instructions (software instructions [0070]) which when executed by a processor (a processor [0066])cause a computer (Computer [0071]) to perform a method (method [0073]) comprising: loading a schema (XML parser 150 first loads into memory all the schema structures [0058])of a data system (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system into memory, (into memory. [0058]) the schema (schema structures [0058]) comprising at least data types, names, and locations or paths to data stored within schema (Schema 180 represents external data (typically, provided
in the form of a file) that specifies the structure ofXML data 170. In particular, schema 180 specifies the tags which; are required/optional, the data type of the values associated with the tags, and the hierarchy of the tags (the child tags that can be contained in a tag), etc. of XML data 170 [0030]) the data system; (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system”
Purohit does not fully disclose present a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; process at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system; identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of at least one blocker of the plurality of blockers; define a query that comprises instructions for extracting data from the data system and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data; and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system and transmit the script to a software application.
Sitrick teaches present a user interface to a user, (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) the user interface (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) displaying information for a predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) process at least one user input, (ABS., user input) (FIG. 1A illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events [0113]) ( FIG. 1C illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0115 ]) (FIG. 1D illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0116]) ( FIG. 1E illustrates an event processing system providing
for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0117]) (FIG. 3A illustrates the state flow of an event processing
system providing for user input of new events based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (FIG. 3B illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. (0122]) (FIG. 3C illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using
modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (a user input (1023), [0156]) the at least one user input(ABS., user input) (FIG. 1A illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events [0113]) ( FIG. 1C illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0115 ]) (FIG. 1D illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0116]) ( FIG. 1E illustrates an event processing system providing
for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0117]) (FIG. 3A illustrates the state flow of an event processing
system providing for user input of new events based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (FIG. 3B illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. (0122]) (FIG. 3C illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using
modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (a user input (1023), [0156]) comprising at least a selection of an event subset (That is, in accordance with the present invention, the events that can be selected to make up the selected set can comprise less than all the events between the first event and the last event within an ordering of the entry order of input. [0080]) from the predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data (A grouping selector (1096), which is responsive to a user input (1093) and grouping history data (1494), provides logic for selecting from zero to a plurality of the events from the event storage (1050) to define a selected set of events (1075), responsive to either a user input or other logic. The selected set of event (1075) are coupled to grouping history storage (1091 [0160]) from the data system; (the system [0182])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit to incorporate the teachings of Sitrick whereby present a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; process at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system. By doing so Event storage stores all event content data representative of all changes and all events. The event content data is logically processed and its storage is structured and mapped so as to permit selection of a selected grouping( s) of selected events. Sitrick [0009]
Allouche teaches identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging,
changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” that prevents the plurality of events(workflows to be performed during well testing period [0091]) such as “plurality of events” ; from completing (in some examples, the operator is interrupted from performing a planned task to perform other task(s) based on the unexpected event(s). [0024]) receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, (The example workflow adjuster 814 of FIG. 8 applies one or more workflow adjustment rules 816 to adjust the workflow(s) 140. The example adjustment rule(s) 816 can be defined by one or more user inputs and/or based on historical data. [0110]) of at least one blocker ((e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or unplanned event(s)), [0110]) of the plurality of blockers; (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging, changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” defining a query that comprises instructions for extracting data (The example workflow adjuster 814 of FIG. 8 applies one or more workflow adjustment rules 816 to adjust the workflow(s) 140. The example adjustment rule(s) 816 can be defined by one or more user inputs and/or based on historical data [0110]) from the data system (system [0025]) and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data; (The example adjustment rule(s) 816 include instructions as to how the workflow adjuster 814 should adjust the workflow(s) 140 based on the reason(s) for the adjustment(s) (e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or unplanned event(s)), [0110] )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick to incorporate the teachings of Allouche whereby identify a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receive a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of at least one blocker of the plurality of blockers; define a query that comprises instructions for extracting data from the data system and for analyzing the at least one blocker based on the extracted data. By doing so the instructions cause the machine to selectively adjust at least one of the first workflow to generate a first adjusted workflow or a second
workflow to generate a second adjusted workflow based on a notice indicative of an unplanned event at the well. The second workflow is to be associated with a second user or a well test device. Allouche [0007]
Acharya teaches and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system (generate a script that includes one or more grant commands associated with the provisioning of the application, [0059]) such as “query based on the schema of the data system” and transmit the script to a software application ( transmit the script to the authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Acharya whereby and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system and transmit the script to a software application. By doing so an application-provisioning framework for database platforms can be implemented. Acharya [0014]
Claims 2, 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of Allouche et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche in view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya and in further view of Smith et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2007/0094377) hereinafter Smith
Regarding claim 2 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya teaches the computing system of claim 1,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the script via the software application, wherein the processor queries the data system for document data based on the defined query and processes the document data to generate results based on the plurality of blockers.
Acharya teaches wherein the processor(processor [0075]) is further configured to execute the script (executed [0092]) via the software application, authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application” wherein the processor (processor [0075]) queries (queries [0065]) the data system (system instance[0091])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Acharya wherein the processor is further configured to execute the script via the software application, wherein the processor queries the data system. By doing so the system user may conduct one or more database transactions on the database, where the one or more database transactions include storing data, causing ingestion of data, removing data, modifying data, inserting data, running one or more queries on the data (such as the query of operation 504, operation 506, and operation 508, for example), creating one or more materialized views, and/or the like. Acharya [0069]
Smith teaches for document data (a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data” based on the defined query (requests for information [0039]) such as “query” and processes the document data (a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data to generate results ( Invocation of the DMT results in a documentation of time associated with the delay. The time documented may be, for example, the agreement time on which the delay was encountered and the new time on which the project should resume. [0072]) based on the plurality of blockers(A weather condition makes it unsafe to perform the task [0052]. The service person does not have all the necessary equipment to complete the task [0053]. A different service person with a more specialized skill set is needed to perform the task [0054] . The customer specifically requests that maintenance efforts be delayed until a specified future return date and time [0055]. The customer is not available to accept restoration of service after all repairs have been completed [0056]. The customer specifically requests that completion of the trouble report be delayed until the circuit is verified as working properly [0057])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Smith for document data based on the defined query and processes the document data” to generate results based on the plurality of blockers. By doing so at the closeout of the project, the delay time documented in the DMT is subtracted or discounted from the total time kept by the maintenance clock. Simith [0073]
Regarding claim 9 Purohit teaches a method (method [0073]) comprising: loading a schema (XML parser 150 first loads into memory all the of a data system (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system” into memory, (into memory [0058])the schema (schema structures [0058]) comprising at least data types, names, and locations or paths to data stored within (Schema 180 represents external data (typically, provided n the form of a file) that specifies the structure ofXML data 170. In particular, schema 180 specifies the tags which; are required/optional, the data type of the values associated with the tags, and the hierarchy of the tags (the child tags that can be contained in a tag), etc. of XML data 170 [0030]) the data system; (Fig. 1B software application [0009]) such as “data system” based on the schema (schema structures [0058])
Purohit does not fully disclose presenting a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; processing at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identifying a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system; identifying a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receiving a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of a subset of blockers of the plurality of blockers; defining a plurality of queries for the subset of blockers, respectively, wherein each query comprises instructions for extracting data for a respective blocker from the data system; and generating a script for executing the plurality of queries and transmitting the script to a software application.
Sitrick teaches presenting a user interface to a user, (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) the user interface (FIG. 3C (320) input interface; (316) display interface; illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0123]) displaying information for a predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) processing at least one user input, (ABS., user input) (FIG. 1A illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events [0113]) ( FIG. 1C illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0115 ]) (FIG. 1D illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0116]) ( FIG. 1E illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0117]) (FIG. 3A illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (FIG. 3B illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. (0122]) (FIG. 3C illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (a user input (1023), [0156]) the at least one user input (ABS., user input) (FIG. 1A illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events [0113]) ( FIG. 1C illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage [0115 ]) (FIG. 1D illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0116]) ( FIG. 1E illustrates an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0117]) (FIG. 3A illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events based on presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (FIG. 3B illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using difference annotations based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. (0122]) (FIG. 3C illustrates the state flow of an event processing system providing for user input of new events using modified formatted presentation data based on formatted presentation data generated from a presentation processor using events in event storage. [0123]) (a user input (1023), [0156]) comprising at least a selection of an event subset (That is, in accordance with the present invention, the events that can be selected to make up the selected set can comprise less than all the events between the first event and the last event within an ordering of the entry order of input. [0080]) from the predetermined list of events; (As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the event storage 1050 is shown with two stored events therein [0158]) identifying a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data (A grouping selector (1096), which is responsive to a user input (1093) and grouping history data (1494), provides logic for selecting from zero to a plurality of the events from the event storage (1050) to define a selected set of events (1075), responsive to either a user input or other logic. The selected set of event (1075) are coupled to grouping history storage (1091 [0160]) from the data system; (the system [0182])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit to incorporate the teachings of Sitrick whereby present a user interface to a user, the user interface displaying information for a predetermined list of events; process at least one user input, the at least one user input comprising at least a selection of an event subset from the predetermined list of events; identify a plurality of events, from the event subset, that occur within a process supported by the data from the data system. By doing so Event storage stores all event content data representative of all changes and all events. The event content data is logically processed and its storage is structured and mapped so as to permit selection of a selected grouping( s) of selected events. Sitrick [0009]
Allouche teaches identifying a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging,
changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” that prevents the plurality of events(workflows to be performed during well testing period [0091]) such as “plurality of events” ; from completing; (in some examples, the operator is interrupted from performing a planned task to perform other task(s) based on the unexpected event(s). [0024]) receiving a user selection, based on the at least one user input, example workflow adjuster 814 of FIG. 8 applies one or more workflow adjustment rules 816 to adjust the workflow(s) 140. The example adjustment rule(s) 816 can be defined by one or more user inputs and/or based on historical data. [0110]) of a subset of blockers ((e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or unplanned event(s)), [0110]) of the plurality of blockers; (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging, changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers” and for executing the process based on the extracted data; (The example adjustment rule(s) 816 include instructions as to how the workflow adjuster 814 should adjust the workflow(s) 140 based on the reason(s) for the adjustment(s) (e.g., task completion delay(s) and/or unplanned event(s)), [0110] )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick to incorporate the teachings of Allouche identifying a plurality of blockers, from a predetermined list of blockers, each blocker of the plurality of blockers comprising an event or occurrence that prevents the plurality of events from completing; receiving a user selection, based on the at least one user input, of a subset of blockers of the plurality of blockers. By doing so the instructions cause the machine to selectively adjust at least one of the first workflow to generate a first adjusted workflow or a second
workflow to generate a second adjusted workflow based on a notice indicative of an unplanned event at the well. The second workflow is to be associated with a second user or a well test device. Allouche [0007]
Smith teaches defining a plurality of queries (requests [0039]) such as “plurality of queries” for the subset of blockers, ( [0052] A weather condition makes it unsafe to perform the task. [0053] The service person does not have all the necessary equipment to complete the task. [0054] A different service person with a more specialized skill set is needed to perform the task. [0055] The customer specifically requests that maintenance efforts be delayed until a specified future return date and time. [0056] The customer is not available to accept restoration of service after all repairs have been completed. The customer specifically requests that completion of the trouble report be delayed until the circuit is verified as working properly. [0057]) respectively, wherein each query (any one of requests [0039]) such as “query” comprises instructions for extracting data (one or one or more of … a reason for the delay [0033]) for a respective blocker (a delay encountered by the service technician [0043]) from the data system ( the system [0069])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit n view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Smithwherein defining a plurality of queries for the subset of blockers, respectively, wherein each query comprises instructions for extracting data for a respective blocker from the data system. By doing so the field personnel can upload information related to the delay. Smith [0012]
Acharya teaches and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system (generate a script that includes one or more grant commands associated with the provisioning of the application, [0059]) such as “query based on the schema of the data system” and transmit the script to a software application ( transmit the script to the authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Acharya whereby and generate a script for executing the defined query based on the schema of the data system and transmit the script to a software application. By doing so an application-provisioning framework for database platforms can be implemented. Acharya [0014]
Regarding claim 10 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya teaches the method of claim 9,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the method further comprises executing the script via the software application, wherein the executing comprises querying the data system for document data based on the plurality of defined queries via the software application, and executing the process based on the document data to generate process results based on the plurality of blockers.
Acharya teaches wherein the method further (Figs. 3 & 5 methods [0009], [0011]) executing (executing [0090]) the script(the script [0059], [0092]) via the software application, (authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application” wherein the executing (executing [0090]) comprises querying (queries [0065]) the data system (system instance[0091])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Acharya wherein executing the script via the software application, wherein the executing comprises querying the data system. By doing so the system user may conduct one or more database transactions on the database, where the one or more database transactions include storing data, causing ingestion of data, removing data, modifying data, inserting data, running one or more queries on the data (such as the query of operation 504, operation 506, and operation 508, for example), creating one or more materialized views, and/or the like. Acharya [0069]
Smith teaches for document data (a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data” based on the plurality of defined queries (requests for information [0039]) such as “queries” via the software application, (client software [0042]) and executing the process (the process [0058]) based on the document data(a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Smith for document data based on the plurality of defined queries and processes via the software application and executing the process ]) based on the document data. By doing so at the closeout of the project, the delay time documented in the DMT is subtracted or discounted from the total time kept by the maintenance clock. Simith [0073]
Allouche teaches to generate process results (adjusted workflows [0108]) such as “process results” based on the plurality of blockers. (unexpected or unplanned events can occur, such as leaks, surge flow, choke plugging, changes in wind direction, etc [0024]) such as “plurality of blockers”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Smith and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Allouche wherein in to generate process results base on the plurality of blockers. By doing so the instructions cause the machine to selectively adjust at least one of the first workflow to generate a first adjusted workflow or a second workflow to generate a second adjusted workflow based on a notice indicative of an unplanned event at the well. The second workflow is to be associated with a second user or a well test device. Allouche [0007]
Regarding claim 18 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya teaches a computer-readable medium of claim 17,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the method further comprises executing the script via the software application, wherein the executing comprises querying the data system for document data based on the defined query and processing the document data to generate results.
Acharya teaches wherein the method further (Figs. 3 & 5 methods [0009], [0011]) comprises executing (executing [0090]) the script (the script [0059], [0092]) via the software application, authorized entity, [0059]) such as “software application” wherein the executing (executing [0090]) comprises querying (queries [0065]) the data system (system instance[0091])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick and Allouche to incorporate the teachings of Acharya wherein executing the script via the software application, wherein the executing comprises querying the data system. By doing so the system user may conduct one or more database transactions on the database, where the one or more database transactions include storing data, causing ingestion of data, removing data, modifying data, inserting data, running one or more queries on the data (such as the query of operation 504, operation 506, and operation 508, for example), creating one or more materialized views, and/or the like. Acharya [0069]
Smith teaches for document data (a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data” based on the defined query (requests for information [0039]) such as “query” and processes the document data (a documentation of time associated with the delay. [0072]) such as “document data to generate results ( Invocation of the DMT results in a documentation of time associated with the delay. The time documented may be, for example, the agreement time on which the delay was encountered and the new time on which the project should resume. [0072])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Smith for document data based on the defined query and processes the document data” to generate results. By doing so at the closeout of the project, the delay time documented in the DMT is subtracted or discounted from the total time kept by the maintenance clock. Simith [0073].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of Allouche et a., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche in view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya and in further view of in view of Zhou et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20050138073 ), hereinafter referred to as Zhou
Regarding claim 5 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya teaches the computing system of claim 1,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to define a structured query language (SQL) query for accessing table data of the process from the data system, and generate a script for executing the SQL query which includes a union of a plurality of SQL queries.
Zhou teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 12, (1210) CPU [0076]) such as “processor” is configured to define a structured query language (SQL) query (process versions of the Structure Query Language (SQL). [0082]) for accessing table data (selects the "ID,""buyer," and "seller" columns from the table "po." [0030]) of the process (steps 1 and 2 [0023]) such as “process” from the data system, (Fig. 1 hierarchical data structures [001]) such as “data system” and generate a script (external scripts [0023]) for executing the SQL query (Fig. 5 parameterized SQL query [0015]) which includes a union (outer-union operation [0025]) of a plurality of SQL queries (These SQL SELECT queries [0028] such as the first query 140 and second query 142, [0074]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the processor is configured to define a structured query language (SQL) query for accessing table data of the process from the data system, and generate a script for executing the SQL query which includes a union of a plurality of SQL queries. By doings go the outer-union query 900 as used by exemplary embodiments of the present invention advantageously combines multiple data queries to an RDBMS, such as the first query 140 and second query 142, into a single data query. Zhou [0074].
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce Randall Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of Allouche et a., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche in view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya and in further view of Rokky Vilakkumadathil, (United States Patent Number 9,244,809), hereinafter Vilakkumadathil,
Regarding claim 6 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya teaches the computing system of claim 1,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to identify a plurality of documents that are used by the process and locations of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the plurality of documents.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify a plurality of documents (Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” that are used by the process(Fig. 2, (200) validating extract, transform and load code Col 6 ln 11) and locations of table data (object specific information Col 4 ln 48) such as “locations of table data” from the data system (Fig. 1, (108) Data Store Col. 4 ln 7) such as “data system” for filling in fields (Fig. 3, Parallel Jobs, “Job Name”, “Agg. Count’,”Trans. Count”, “Re-Part. count”,”Ann. Count Ratio”, “DB R/W count”, “File R/W Count”, “Hard-coding count”, “Stds. Violation Count”; Sequence Jobs, “Sequence Name”, “Stage Count”, “Param. Count”, “Ann. Count”, “Hard-coding Count”, “Stds. Violation Count” Col 4 ln 43 – 58; Fig. 4, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Error Descripting”, “String Looked For”, “DSX Line”, Col. 3 ln 26 – 29; and Fig. 5, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Stage Type”, “Violation Type”, “Violation Description” Col 3 ln 30 - 33) of the plurality of documents. (Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the processor is configured to identify a plurality of documents that are used by the process and locations of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the plurality of documents. By doing so a status report to be logged after a run of the job. Vilakkumadathil Col 7 ln 44 – 48
Regarding claim 7 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Alloche, Acharya and Vilakkumadathi teaches the computing system of claim 6,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to identify the plurality of blockers based on a plurality of blocking events that prevent the plurality of documents from being completed during the process
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the processor(Fig. 6 (602) CPU Col 12 ln 34) such as “processor” is configured to identify the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” based on a plurality of blocking events ((i) For example, the first row of data in portion 400 indicates that for a parallel job having the name ATL201FileReceipt, validation tool 104 (see FIG.1) detects a database hardcoding violation because validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string SOL2DEV (see the string in the String Looked For column in portion 400) in a DSX line of the parallel job ATL201FileReceipt. A portion of the DSX line that includes "sol2dev" is shown in the DSX Line column in FIG. 4. Regarding the second row of data in portion 400, although the DWH_D string in the String Looked For column is not shown in the portion of the DSX line included in the DSX Line column, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string DWH_D in a search of the entire DSX line, thereby detecting a hardcoding violation. (ii) For example, the first row of data in portion 500 indicates that for the parallel job AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) determines an annotation violation because there is no job annotation for AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile .Col. 12 ln 24 - 27) that prevent the plurality of documents (Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) during the process (Fig. 2, (200) validating extract, transform and load code Col 6 ln 11)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Alloche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the processor is configured to identify the plurality of blockers based on a plurality of blocking events that prevent the plurality of documents from being completed during the process. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 - 20
Regarding claim 8 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Vilakkumadathi teaches the computing system of claim 7,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to define a query for a blocker based on a document that is associated with the blocker and a location of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the document.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 6 (602) CPU Col 12 ln 34) such as “processor” is configured to define a query (Fig. 2, (224) rework code in development area for validation issues identified Col 9 ln 30) for a blocker (FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) based on a document (any one of Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” that is associated with the blocker (FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) and a location of table data (object specific information Col 4 ln 48) such as “locations of table data” from the data system (Fig. 1, (108) Data Store Col. 4 ln 7) such as “data system” for filling in fields (Fig. 3, Parallel Jobs, “Job Name”, “Agg. Count’,”Trans. Count”, “Re-Part. count”,”Ann. Count Ratio”, “DB R/W count”, “File R/W Count”, “Hard-coding count”, “Stds. Violation Count”; Sequence Jobs, “Sequence Name”, “Stage Count”, “Param. Count”, “Ann. Count”, “Hard-coding Count”, “Stds. Violation Count” Col 4 ln 43 – 58; Fig. 4, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Error Descripting”, “String Looked For”, “DSX Line”, Col. 3 ln 26 – 29; and Fig. 5, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Stage Type”, “Violation Type”, “Violation Description” Col 3 ln 30 - 33) of the document (any one of Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche and Acharya to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the processor is configured to define a query for a blocker based on a document that is associated with the blocker and a location of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the document. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 – 20
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of of Allouche et a., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche in view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya, Smith et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2007/0094377) hereinafter Smith and in further view of Rokky Vilakkumadathil, (United States Patent Number 9,244,809), hereinafter Vilakkumadathil,
Regarding claim 3 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith the computing system of claim 2,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to identify an event and one or more blockers that prevent the event from being completed based on the generated results, and display an identifier of the event and identifiers of the one or more blockers via a user interface.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 6 (602) CPU Col 12 ln 34) such as “processor is configured to identify an event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and one or more blockers (any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) that prevent the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) based on the generated results, (Fig. 2, (210) generate validation report identifying violation(s) for each job Col 8 ln 15) and display an identifier (Fig. 4 DSX Line No. 7192 Col. 12 ln 6 - 7) such as “identifier” of the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and identifiers (includes a red colored background ( or another predetermined visual indicator of a violation of a standard) for the name(s) of object(s) listed in validation report 110 (see FIG. 1) Col 8 ln 31 – 34) of the one or more blockers (any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) via a user interface (Fig. 6, (606) I/O Interface Col. 12 ln 34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purothi in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the processor is configured to identify an event and one or more blockers that prevent the event from being completed based on the generated results, and display an identifier of the event and identifiers of the one or more blockers via a user interface. By doing so performance standards may be determined. Vilakkumadathil Col 4 ln 5 – 10
Regarding claim 4 Purothit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya, Smith and Vilakkumadathil teaches the computing system of claim 3,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the processor is further configured to identify a most urgent blocker from among the plurality of blockers based on a rate of occurrence of the most urgent blocker from the document data, and distinguish a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers from among the plurality of blockers displayed on the user interface
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 6 (602) CPU Col 12 ln 34) such as “processor is further configured to identify a most urgent blocker (If the count exceeds the threshold value, validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the count to indicate a violation of standards stored in data store 108. Furthermore, if validation tool 104 determines that any count of an item of an object exceeds the corresponding threshold value, then validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the name of the object. Col. 5 ln 5 - 14) from among the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” based on a rate of occurrence (any count of an item of an object exceeds the corresponding threshold value, Col. 5 ln 10 - 12) of the most urgent blocker (violation colored red Col. 5 ln 5 – 14) from the document data, (naming, coding, and performance standards Col. 4 ln 5 - 6) such as “document data” and distinguish a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers (A reviewer studies validation report 110 to find which objects have and which objects do not have a red colored background or other indication of a standard violation. Col. 5 ln 19 - 22) from among the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” displayed on the user interface (Fig. 6, (606) I/O Interface Col. 12 ln 34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the processor is further configured to identify a most urgent blocker from among the plurality of blockers based on a rate of occurrence of the most urgent blocker from the document data, and distinguish a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers from among the plurality of blockers displayed on the user interface. By doing so validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the count to indicate a violation of standards stored in data store 108. Vilakkumadathil Col 5 ln 5 - 10
Regarding claim 11 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith teaches the method of claim 10,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the method further comprises identifying an event and a plurality of blockers that prevent the event from being completed based on the generated process results, and displaying an identifier of the event and identifiers of the plurality of blockers via a user interface
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the method (method of validating code Col 12 ln 39) further comprises identifying an event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and a plurality of blockers(any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) that prevent the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) from being completed(aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) based on the generated process results, (Fig. 2, (210) generate validation report identifying violation(s) for each job Col 8 ln 15) and displaying an identifier (Fig. 4 DSX Line No. 7192 Col. 12 ln 6 - 7) such as “identifier” of the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and identifiers (includes a red colored background ( or another predetermined visual indicator of a violation of a standard) for the name(s) of object(s) listed in validation report 110 (see FIG. 1) Col 8 ln 31 – 34) of the plurality of blockers (any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) via a user interface (Fig. 6, (606) I/O Interface Col. 12 ln 34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the method further comprises identifying an event and a plurality of blockers that prevent the event from being completed based on the generated process results, and displaying an identifier of the event and identifiers of the plurality of blockers via a user interface. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) of ETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 – 20
Regarding claim 12 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya, Smith and Vilakkumadathi teaches the method (method [0022[]) of claim 11,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the method further comprises identifying a most urgent blocker from among the plurality of blockers based on a rate of occurrence of the most urgent blocker from the generated process results, and distinguishing a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers from among the plurality of blockers displayed on the user interface
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the method (method of validating code Col 12 ln 39) further comprises identifying a most urgent blocker (If the
count exceeds the threshold value, validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the count to indicate a violation of standards stored in data store 108. Furthermore, if validation tool 104 determines that any count of an item of an object exceeds the corresponding threshold value, then validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the name of the object. Col. 5 ln 5 - 14) from among the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” based on a rate of occurrence (any count of an item of an object exceeds the corresponding threshold value, Col. 5 ln 10 - 12) of the most urgent blocker (violation colored red Col. 5 ln 5 – 14) from the generated process results, (Fig. 2, (210) generate validation report identifying violation(s) for each job Col 8 ln 15) and distinguishing a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers (A reviewer studies validation report 110 to find which objects have and
which objects do not have a red colored background or other indication of a standard violation. Col. 5 ln 19 - 22) from among the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” from among the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” displayed on the user interface. (Fig. 6, (606) I/O Interface Col. 12 ln 34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the method further comprises identifying a most urgent blocker from among the plurality of blockers based on a rate of occurrence of the most urgent blocker from the generated process results, and distinguishing a display of an identifier of the most urgent blocker from a display of identifiers of other blockers from among the plurality of blockers displayed on the user interface. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 – 20
Regarding claim 14 Purhohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith teaches the method of claim 9,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the identifying the plurality of events comprises identifying a plurality of documents that are used by the process and locations of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the plurality of documents.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the identifying the plurality of events (Figs. 3, 4 & 5, Parallel Jobs, Sequence Jobs, Routine Functions and Shared Container Col. 4 ln 45 – 48) such as “plurality of events” comprises identifying a plurality of documents (Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” that are used by the process (Fig. 2, (200) validating extract, transform and load code Col 6 ln 11) and locations of table data (object specific information Col 4 ln 48) such as “locations of table data” from the data system (Fig. 1, (108) Data Store Col. 4 ln 7) such as “data system” for filling in fields (Fig. 3, Parallel Jobs, “Job Name”, “Agg. Count’,”Trans. Count”, “Re-Part. count”,”Ann. Count Ratio”, “DB R/W count”, “File R/W Count”, “Hard-coding count”, “Stds. Violation Count”; Sequence Jobs, “Sequence Name”, “Stage Count”, “Param. Count”, “Ann. Count”, “Hard-coding Count”, “Stds. Violation Count” Col 4 ln 43 – 58; Fig. 4, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Error Descripting”, “String Looked For”, “DSX Line”, Col. 3 ln 26 – 29; and Fig. 5, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Stage Type”, “Violation Type”, “Violation Description” Col 3 ln 30 - 33) of the plurality of documents (Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the identifying the plurality of events comprises identifying a plurality of documents that are used by the process and locations of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the plurality of documents. By doing so In step 208, for each violation determined in step 206, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) determines attributes of the violation, including a corresponding job or object name, stage name, stage type, violation type and description of the violation. Vilakkumadathil Co 8 ln 10 - 15
Regarding claim 15 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya, Smith and Vilakkumadathi teaches the method (method [0022[]) of claim 14,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events that prevent the plurality of documents from being completed during the process.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events ((i) For example, the first row of data in portion 400 indicates that for a parallel job having the name ATL201FileReceipt, validation tool 104 (see FIG.1) detects a database hardcoding violation because validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string SOL2DEV (see the string in the String Looked For column in portion 400) in a DSX line of the parallel job ATL201FileReceipt. A portion of the DSX line that includes "sol2dev" is shown in the DSX Line column in FIG. 4. Regarding the second row of data in portion 400, although the DWH_D string in the String Looked For column is not shown in the portion of the DSX line included in the DSX Line column, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string DWH_D in a search of the entire DSX line, thereby detecting a hardcoding violation. (ii) For example, the first row of data in portion 500 indicates that for the parallel job AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) determines an annotation violation because there is no job annotation for AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile .Col. 12 ln 24 - 27) that prevent the plurality of documents(Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) during the process. (Fig. 2, (200) validating extract, transform and load code Col 6 ln 11)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya, Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events that prevent the plurality of documents from being completed during the process. By doing so In step 208, for each violation determined in step 206, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) determines attributes of the violation, including a corresponding job or object name, stage name, stage type, violation type and description of the violation. Vilakkumadathil Co 8 ln 10 - 15
Regarding claim 16 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya, Smith and Vilakkumadathi teaches the method (method [0022[]) of claim 15,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the defining comprises defining a query for a blocker based on a document that is associated with the blocker and a location of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the document.
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the defining comprises defining a query (Fig. 2, (224) rework code in development area for validation issues identified Col 9 ln 30) for a blocker based (FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) on a document (any one of Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” that is associated with the blocker (FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) and a location of table data(object specific information Col 4 ln 48) such as “locations of table data” from the data system(Fig. 1, (108) Data Store Col. 4 ln 7) such as “data system” for filling in fields (Fig. 3, Parallel Jobs, “Job Name”, “Agg. Count’,”Trans. Count”, “Re-Part. count”,”Ann. Count Ratio”, “DB R/W count”, “File R/W Count”, “Hard-coding count”, “Stds. Violation Count”; Sequence Jobs, “Sequence Name”, “Stage Count”, “Param. Count”, “Ann. Count”, “Hard-coding Count”, “Stds. Violation Count” Col 4 ln 43 – 58; Fig. 4, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Error Descripting”, “String Looked For”, “DSX Line”, Col. 3 ln 26 – 29; and Fig. 5, “DSX Line No.”, “Object Type”, “Object Name”, “Stage Name”, “Stage Type”, “Violation Type”, “Violation Description” Col 3 ln 30 - 33) of the document. (any one of Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the defining comprises defining a query for a blocker based on a document that is associated with the blocker and a location of table data from the data system for filling in fields of the document. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 – 20
Regarding claim 19 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith teaches the computer-readable medium (tangible processor readable storage medium [0086]) of claim 18,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the executing further comprises identifying an event and a blocker that prevents the event from being completed based on the generated results, and displaying an identifier of the event and an identifier of the blocker via a user interface
Vilakkumadathil teaches wherein the executing further comprises identifying an event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and a blocker (any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) that prevents the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) based on the generated results, (Fig. 2, (210) generate validation report identifying violation(s) for each job Col 8 ln 15) and displaying an identifier (Fig. 4 DSX Line No. 7192 Col. 12 ln 6 - 7) such as “identifier” of the event (Fig. 4 Parallel Job Col 12 ln 2) and an identifier (includes a red colored background ( or another predetermined visual indicator of a violation of a standard) for the name(s) of object(s) listed in validation report 110 (see FIG. 1) Col 8 ln 31 – 34) of the blocker (any one of (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers FOR EXAMPLE Fig. 4 “Error Description” – Database HardCoding Col 12 ln 1 – 14) via a user interface (Fig. 6, (606) I/O Interface Col. 12 ln 34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the executing further comprises identifying an event and a blocker that prevents the event from being completed based on the generated results, and displaying an identifier of the event and an identifier of the blocker via a user interface. By doing so In step 210, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) generates validation report 110 (see FIG. 1), which identifies one or both of the following items: (1) object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that violate the standards and (2) other object(s) ofETL code 106 (see FIG. 1) that comply with the standards. Vilakkumadathil Col 8 ln 15 – 20
Regarding claim 20 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 18,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events that prevent a plurality of documents from being completed during the process based on the generated results.
Vilakkumadathil as modified further teaches wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers (Figs 3 & 5 standard violations Col 3 ln 22 – 25, Col 3 ln 30 – 33, Fig. 4 hard-coding violations Col 3 ln 26 - 29) such as “plurality of blockers” comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events ((i) For example, the first row of data in portion 400 indicates that for a parallel job having the name ATL201FileReceipt, validation tool 104 (see FIG.1) detects a database hardcoding violation because validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string SOL2DEV (see the string in the String Looked For column in portion 400) in a DSX line of the parallel job ATL201FileReceipt. A portion of the DSX line that includes "sol2dev" is shown in the DSX Line column in FIG. 4. Regarding the second row of data in portion 400, although the DWH_D string in the String Looked For column is not shown in the portion of the DSX line included in the DSX Line column, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) finds the string DWH_D in a search of the entire DSX line, thereby detecting a hardcoding violation. (ii) For example, the first row of data in portion 500 indicates that for the parallel job AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile, validation tool 104 (see FIG. 1) determines an annotation violation because there is no job annotation for AIE0Ol WriteSAPFile .Col. 12 ln 24 - 27) that prevent a plurality of documents(Figs. 3, 4 & 5 exemplary portions of reports Col 3 ln 22 - 32) such as “plurality of documents” from being completed (aborted Col 7 ln 48, Col 11 ln 6) during the process (Fig. 2, (200) validating extract, transform and load code Col 6 ln 11) based on the generated results. (Fig. 2, (210) generate validation report identifying violation(s) for each job Col 8 ln 15)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vilakkumadathil wherein the identifying the plurality of blockers comprises identifying a plurality of blocking events that prevent a plurality of documents from being completed during the process based on the generated results. By doing so validation report 110 includes a red colored background or other indicator for the count to indicate a violation of standards stored in data store 108. Vilakkumadathil Col 5 ln 5 – 10
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purohit, (United States Patent Publication Number 2013/0290377) hereinafter Purohit, in view of Sitrick et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0082472) hereinafter Sitrick, in view of of Allouche et a., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0327481) hereinafter Allouche and in further view of Acharya et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0365577) hereinafter Acharya, in view of Smith et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2007/0094377) hereinafter Smith and in further view of in view of Zhou et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20050138073 ), hereinafter referred to as Zhou
Regarding claim 13 Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya Smith teaches the method of claim 9,
Purohit as modified does not fully disclose wherein the defining comprises defining a plurality of structured query language (SQL) queries for accessing table data of the process from the data system, and the generating comprises generating a script for executing a single SQL query which includes a union of the plurality of SQL queries.
Zhou teaches wherein the defining comprises defining a plurality of structured query language (SQL) queries (process versions of the Structure Query Language (SQL). [0082]) for accessing table data (selects the "ID,""buyer," and "seller" columns from the table "po." [0030]) of the process (steps 1 and 2 [0023]) such as “process” from the data system, (Fig. 1 hierarchical data structures [001]) such as “data system” and generate a script (external scripts [0023]) for executing a single SQL query (Fig. 6 single outer-union SQL query [0016]) which includes a union (outer-union operation [0025]) of a plurality of SQL queries (These SQL SELECT queries [0028] such as the first query 140 and second query 142, [0074]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Purohit in view of Sitrick, Allouche, Acharya and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Zhou wherein the processor is configured to define a structured query language (SQL) query for accessing table data of the process from the data system, and generate a script for executing the SQL query which includes a union of a plurality of SQL queries. By doings go the outer-union query 900 as used by exemplary embodiments of the present invention advantageously combines multiple data queries to an RDBMS, such as the first query 140 and second query 142, into a single data query. Zhou [0074].
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Erickson et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2016/0171107) teaches “enable efficient recording of gathered event data and retrieving of stored event data. The event historian receives the event data from one or more different client systems, potentially at various locations, and stores the data quickly and accurately [0015]”
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469) 295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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).
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights