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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14 and 15-17 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272489 to Klemenz et al. (Klemenz) in view of US 2019/0188297 to Goyal et al. (Goyal) in view of “SAP HANA Developer Guide” (HANA) in view of “VDM Layers and View Types” from the SAP HANA “Help Portal” (SAP).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Klemenz, Goyal, HANA and SAP teach one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method of automatically generating core data services (CDS) source code based on an agreed data model, the method comprising:
receiving a data file representing the agreed data model, the data file being formatted according to a structured data markup language and comprising tags and elements associated with the agreed data model (Klemenz par. [0057] “receiving, at 810, a data model definition … generates, at 820, a machine-readable representation of the data model definition”, par. [0053] “a JSON-based representation”);
parsing the data file to determine data model content contained in the data file (Klemenz par. [0057] “a machine-readable representation”, par. [0059] “generates … from the machine readable representation” );
identifying, from the data model content, a type of CDS source code to be generated, the type being either programming-language-defined CDS source code or CDS entity source code (HANA pp. 18-19, §2.3, 2nd par. “developed and run in SAP HANA … developed in … (for example, … Java)”, pg. 156, §5.1.1, 2nd par. “using the DDL-compliant Core Data Services syntax”);
identifying, from the data model content, relationships between different types of CDS views referenced in the data model content, the different types of CDS views including basic views, composite views, consumption views, transactional views, private views, and extension views ((HANA pg. 220, §5.1.6 “Associations define relationships between entities”, SAP pp. 1-2, “basic interface … Composite interface views”, pp. 2-3 “Consumption views … Private views … Transactional processing views … View extends”);
displaying, in a user interface based on the relationships, a hierarchy of existing and new CDS views corresponding to the CDS views referenced in the data model content (Goyal par. [0032] “At 701, a plurality of predefined CDS views are displayed … the selected predefined CDS view includes the one or more associated CDS views (703: YES)” par. [0030] “in a hierarchical order”); and
generating the CDS source code by:
receiving, in the user interface from a user, a selection of a CDS view associated with the hierarchy (Goyal par. [0032] “At 702, a selection of a predefined CDS view … is received”); and
generating the CDS source code based on the data model content, the type of CDS source code, and the CDS view (Klemenz par. [0059] “generates, at 830, a set of interfaces for the machine readable representation of the data model definition”),
wherein the generated CDS source code is compliant with virtual data model requirements (Klemenz par. [0059] “generates, at 830, a set of interfaces for the machine readable representation of the data model definition”, SAP pg. 1, “the virtual data model”), and
wherein the CDS source code comprises one or more CDS artifacts that make up a data-persistence model (HANA pg. 152 § 5 Setting up the Data Persistence Model in SAP HANA) associated with an in-memory database (IMDB) application (Klemenz par. [0138] “in-memory database”), the one or more CDS artifacts including one or more relations between CDS views (HANA pg. 220, §5.1.6 “Associations define relationships between entities”), one or more join conditions associated with the one or more relations (HANA pg. 248, JOIN), one or more annotations (HANA pg. 173 § 5.1.2.6 CDS Annotations), one or more key fields (HANA pg. 248”, JOIN “key id”), and one or more fully qualified names (HANA pg. 180, Scalar Annotations “addressed … by means of their fully qualified name”).
Klemenz does not explicitly disclose displaying a view hierarchy. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to display a view hierarchy as taught by Goyal. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ease the burden on developers.
Klemenz and Goyal do not explicitly teach core data services artifacts including relations between core data services views, join conditions, annotations, key fields, and fully qualified names, basic views, composite views, consumption views, transactional views, private views, and extension views.
HANA and SAP teach data services artifacts as claimed are standard aspects of the SAP HANA environment. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide designs/generate code which is in compliance with the SAP HANA environment as a known CDS environment which would have resulted in only the expected results.
Claims 3, 11 and 17: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claims 1, 10 and 15, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the existing and new CDS views as a multiply hierarchical data model comprising more than one level of hierarchy (Goyal par. [0032] “When the selected predefined CDS view includes the one or more associated CDS views (703: YES), the one or more associated CDS vies is rendered at 704”).
Claims 6, 14 and 20: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claims 1, 8 and 17, wherein generating the CDS source code further comprises providing an integrated development environment in which the user may further edit initially generated code (Klemenz par. [0060] “provides, at 840, the set of interfaces to an integrated development environment (IDE)”).
Claim 9: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 8, wherein the data file is formatted according to JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format (Klemenz par. [0063] “machine-readable representation 1000 is a JSON-based representation of the data model definition”).
Claim 21: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 1, wherein generating the core data services source code further comprises:
identifying relationships between a plurality of views in the agreed data model (Goyal par. [0020] “define relationship between objects or two CDS views”, par. [0030] “in a hierarchical order”); and
accessing the plurality of views from a data storage; and
generating a hierarchy based on the relationships between the plurality of views (Goyal par. [0030] “in a hierarchical order”).
Claim 22: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 1, further comprising transmitting the hierarchy from a backend server to the user interface for display to a user (Klemenz par. [0032] “a server-side runtime environment”, Goyal par. [0030] “in a hierarchical order”).
Claim 24: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 1, wherein the agreed data model conforms to pre-defined requirements for obtaining data objects from one or more data sources (Klemenz par. [0033] “define data model definitions”).
Claims 2, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272489 to Klemenz et al. (Klemenz) in view of US 2019/0188297 to Goyal et al. (Goyal) in view of “SAP HANA Developer Guide” (HANA) in view of US 2014/0282227 to Nixon et al. (Nixon).
Claims 2, 10 and 16: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claims 1, 9 and 15, but do not explicitly teach wherein the data file is generated from a graphical representation of the agreed data model created via a graphical modeling tool.
Nixon teaches a data file is generated from a graphical representation of an agreed data model created via a graphical modeling tool (Nixon par. [0013] “A data modeling studio … for graphically creating or programming data models”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to generate a data model from a graphical representation of the data model. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known means of generating a data model which would produce only the expected results and would have reduced the burden on the developers.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272489 to Klemenz et al. (Klemenz) in view of US 2019/0188297 to Goyal et al. (Goyal) in view of “SAP HANA Developer Guide” (HANA) in view of “Part#10. CDS Views -@VDM Annotations” by Kumar (Kumar).
Claims 4, 12 and 18: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claims 1, 11 and 17, but do not explicitly teach wherein the CDS view comprises one or more private views.
Kumar teaches:
core data services views comprising one or more private views (pg. 3, 2nd par. “-PRIVATE … These views are private to SAP”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for the core data services view to comprise private views. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known view type which would have produced only the expected results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272489 to Klemenz et al. (Klemenz) in view of US 2019/0188297 to Goyal et al. (Goyal) in view of “SAP HANA Developer Guide” (HANA) in view of US 2005/0229154 to Hiew et al. (Hiew).
Claim 7: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 6, but do not explicitly teach wherein the integrated development environment in which the user may further edit initially generated code provides source code auto complete functionality based on the initially generated code.
Hiew teaches:
integrated development environment that provides source code auto complete functionality (par. [0055] “the editor 80 may also provide an auto-complete function”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide auto-complete functionality. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ease the burden on developers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272489 to Klemenz et al. (Klemenz) in view of US 2019/0188297 to Goyal et al. (Goyal) in view of “SAP HANA Developer Guide” (HANA) in view of US 2020/0192891 to Hrastnik (Hrastnik).
Claim 23: Klemenz, Goyal and HANA teach claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the agreed data model further comprises a plurality of join operations and a select from operation specifying at least one view of the plurality of views.
Hrastnik teaches:
a data model comprising a plurality of join operations and a select from operation (par. [0029] “relations (e.g., dependencies of type “select from” … the number of allowed joined data sources”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for the data model to comprise a plurality of join operations and a select from operation. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known core data service which would have produced only the expected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at (571)272-3759. 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.
/JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199