DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations "determining, using the knowledge graph, an access strategy and a synchronization strategy for performing an analysis, by, automatically" and "determining the access strategy between the first source node and the second data node, and determining the synchronization strategy between the first data node and the second data node" recite mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitation “a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a management entity which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitations "obtaining a knowledge graph representing a recommended data mesh, the knowledge graph comprising a computer-readable data structure and including nodes and connections between the nodes, the nodes including: data nodes, each data node representing a computational resource, analysis nodes, each analysis node representing an analysis to be performed, and source nodes, each source node representing a source of a data element" and "identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first source node representing a source of a data element on which the analysis is to be performed, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first data node representing a computational resource on which the analysis is to run, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a second data node representing a computational resource on which the data element is to reside" represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations "obtaining a knowledge graph representing a recommended data mesh, the knowledge graph comprising a computer-readable data structure and including nodes and connections between the nodes, the nodes including: data nodes, each data node representing a computational resource, analysis nodes, each analysis node representing an analysis to be performed, and source nodes, each source node representing a source of a data element" and "identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first source node representing a source of a data element on which the analysis is to be performed, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first data node representing a computational resource on which the analysis is to run, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a second data node representing a computational resource on which the data element is to reside" are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitation “a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
The limitations "obtaining a knowledge graph representing a recommended data mesh, the knowledge graph comprising a computer-readable data structure and including nodes and connections between the nodes, the nodes including: data nodes, each data node representing a computational resource, analysis nodes, each analysis node representing an analysis to be performed, and source nodes, each source node representing a source of a data element" and "identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first source node representing a source of a data element on which the analysis is to be performed, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first data node representing a computational resource on which the analysis is to run, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a second data node representing a computational resource on which the data element is to reside" represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 16, it is a media/product type claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 14 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” which are generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 20 recites “a computing device; and a computer-readable storage device” which recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more and recite intended use limitations that do not have patentable weight.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claim 17), it recites “wherein identifying the first data node representing the computational resource on which the analysis is to run comprises identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between the first data node and a first analysis node representing the analysis to be performed” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claim 18), it recites “wherein the nodes include ontology nodes, each ontology node representing an axiom of a data ontology, wherein identifying, within the knowledge graph, the first source node representing the source of the data element on which the analysis is to be performed comprises: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between a first ontology node and a first analysis node representing the analysis to be performed; and identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between the first source node and the first ontology node” which is represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 4 (and similarly for claim 19), it recites “wherein determining the access strategy comprises selecting, from the knowledge graph, a connection between the first source node and the second data node representing a path for transferring data between the first source node and the second data node”, which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 5, it recites “wherein the first data node is different from the second data node, and determining the access strategy comprises selecting, from the knowledge graph, a connection between the first data node and the second data node representing a path for transferring the data element between the first data node and the second data node”, which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 6, it recites “wherein the first data node is the same as the second data node” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 7, it recites “wherein identifying, within the knowledge graph, the first data node representing the computational resource on which the analysis is to run comprises: evaluating a plurality of data nodes using a cost function; and selecting, from the plurality of data nodes, the first data node based on the evaluation of the plurality of data nodes” which is represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 8, it recites “comprising: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a third data node representing a computational resource on which a backup of the data element is to reside, the method comprising: determining a synchronization strategy between the second data node and the third data node”, which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 9, it recites “wherein the source of the data element comprises one of a sensor, a file, or a database” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 10, it recites “wherein the synchronization strategy defines a frequency of data synchronization between the first data node and the second data node” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 11, it recites “wherein the synchronization strategy defines a direction of data transfer between the first data node and the second data node” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 12, it recites “comprising determining the synchronization strategy based on a type of data of the data element”, which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 13, it recites “comprising determining the synchronization strategy based on a type of the analysis”, which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 14, it recites “wherein a connection between two data nodes represents a data transfer path between computational resources represented by the two data nodes” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 15, it recites “wherein a connection between a source node and a data node represents a data transfer path between the source represented by the source node and the computational resource represented by the data node” which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorth (US PG Pub No. 2022/0027767), in view of Belgodere et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0080422), further in view of Chen et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0105185).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnamoorth teaches a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors and comprising:
obtaining a knowledge graph representing a recommended data mesh([0058], identifying and analyzing any contextual and/or relational information present in the resource requirements), the knowledge graph comprising a computer-readable data structure and including nodes and connections between the nodes ([0057], generating the relevant knowledge graph to the system 130), the nodes including:
data nodes, each data node representing a computational resource ([0008], one or more nodes representing the one or more resource),
analysis nodes, each analysis node representing an analysis to be performed, and source nodes, each source node representing a source of a data element ([0005], generate a superimposed unified resource ontological (URO) graph based on at least the one or more resource requirements and the metadata associated with the one or more resources; [0010]);
Krishnamoorthy does not disclose determining, using the knowledge graph, an access strategy for performing an analysis, by, automatically: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first source node representing a source of a data element on which the analysis is to be performed, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first data node representing a computational resource on which the analysis is to run, identifying, within the knowledge graph, a second data node representing a computational resource on which the data element is to reside, determining the access strategy between the first source node and the second data node.
However, Belgodere et al. teaches determining, using the knowledge graph, an access strategy and a synchronization strategy for performing an analysis, by, automatically: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first source node representing a source of a data element on which the analysis is to be performed ([0079], wherein content analysis of enterprise ontology elements including, for example, enterprise profile, services, and rules (602)), identifying, within the knowledge graph, a first data node representing a computational resource on which the analysis is to run ([0079], wherein content analysis of enterprise ontology elements including, for example, enterprise profile, services, and rules (602)), identifying, within the knowledge graph, a second data node representing a computational resource on which the data element is to reside ([0079], wherein content analysis of enterprise ontology elements including, for example, enterprise profile, services, and rules (602)), determining the access strategy between the first source node and the second data node ([0085], wherein all the compliance state computations are also validated by a metadata driven controller function, compliance provenance module 742, also referred to as the compliance provenance function; [0090], wherein meshing an external information graph with the CMDB knowledge graph; [0078], wherein negotiating and/or implementing a cost-effective compliance configuration in an iterative manner)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Krishnamoorthy with Belgodere et al. to include determining, using the knowledge graph, an access strategy and a synchronization strategy for performing an analysis. This would have facilitated machine learning in mesh configuration analysis.
Krishnamoorthy and Belgodere do not teach determining, using the knowledge graph a synchronization strategy and determining the synchronization strategy between the first data node and the second data node.
Chen teaches the use of a graph for determining synchronization strategy between nodes ([0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to determining the synchronization strategy between the first data node and the second data node using the knowledge graph. One would be motivated by the desire to select a desirable strategy according to any number of preferences as taught by Chen ([0157]).
Regarding claim 2, Krishnamoorthy teaches identifying the first data node representing the computational resource on which the analysis is to run comprises identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between the first data node and a first analysis node representing the analysis to be performed ([0065], wherein one or more nodes representing the one or more resource requirements to the one or more nodes representing the information associated with the one or more resources).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein determining the access strategy comprises selecting, from the knowledge graph, a connection between the first source node and the second data node representing a path for transferring data between the first source node and the second data node ([0065], wherein one or more nodes representing the one or more resource requirements to the one or more nodes representing the information associated with the one or more resources).
Regarding claim 5, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein the first data node is different from the second data node, and determining the access strategy comprises selecting, from the knowledge graph, a connection between the first data node and the second data node representing a path for transferring the data element between the first data node and the second data node ([0055], wherein The ACO algorithm is configured to traverse the paths in the superimposed URO graph and identify a set of paths with the shortest distance (weighted) between the nodes representing the resource requirements and the nodes representing the resources. Each path is characterized by a set of primary resource selection parameters (path preference parameters, exposure preference parameters, and resource preference parameters) and secondary resource selection parameters; [0062], wherein it's possible to get from every node in the graph to every other node in the graph through a series of edges, called a path).
Regarding claim 6, Belgodere teaches wherein the first data node is the same as the second data node ([0078-79]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Belgodere teaches identifying, within the knowledge graph, the first data node representing the computational resource on which the analysis is to run comprises: evaluating a plurality of data nodes using a cost function; and selecting, from the plurality of data nodes, the first data node based on the evaluation of the plurality of data nodes ([0078-79]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches comprising: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a third data node representing a computational resource on which a backup of the data element is to reside, the method comprising: determining a synchronization strategy between the second data node and the third data node ([0157]).
Regarding claim 9, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein the source of the data element comprises one of a sensor, a file, or a database ([0072], database).
Regarding claim 10, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein the synchronization strategy defines a frequency of data synchronization between the first data node and the second data node ([0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein the synchronization strategy defines a direction of data transfer between the first data node and the second data node ([0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches comprising determining the synchronization strategy based on a type of data of the data element ([0157]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches comprising determining the synchronization strategy based on a type of the analysis ([0157]).
Regarding claim 14, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein a connection between two data nodes represents a data transfer path between computational resources represented by the two data nodes ([0030]).
Regarding claim 15, Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein a connection between a source node and a data node represents a data transfer path between the source represented by the source node and the computational resource represented by the data node ([0030]).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19-20, they are the medium and system claims of claims 1-2 and 4 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-2 and 4 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorth (US PG Pub No. 2022/0027767), in view of Belgodere et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0080422), in view of Chen et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0105185), further in view of Stepanova et al. (US Pub. No. 20210056448).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnamoorthy teaches the nodes include ontology nodes, each ontology node representing an axiom of a data ontology ([0005], generate a superimposed unified resource ontological (URO) graph based on at least the one or more resource requirements and the metadata associated with the one or more resources).
Krishnamoorthy and Belgodere do not teach wherein identifying, within the knowledge graph, the first source node representing the source of the data element on which the analysis is to be performed comprises: identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between a first ontology node and a first analysis node representing the analysis to be performed; and identifying, within the knowledge graph, a connection between the first source node and the first ontology node.
However, Stepanova wherein a connection between an analysis node and an ontology node indicates that the analysis represented by the analysis node is performed using the axiom represented by the ontology node ([0026], wherein the ontology comprising a formal explicit description of said classes and/or said properties and further comprising axioms about said classes and/or properties). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Krishnamoorthy and Belgodere with Stepanova to include wherein the plurality of target intervals are obtained to determine a discretization code of a feature information of data to be processed. This would have facilitated machine learning in mesh configuration analysis.
Regarding claim 18, it is the medium claim of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195