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
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Sekiguchi discloses combining two graphs with a third graph, and that nodes of the graph represent "operations." See Sekiguchi, paragraph [0212]. However, Sekiguchi does not disclose that the operations are "performed as part of a respective sequence of data transformations." …
Behzadi discloses operations which are “performed as part of a respective sequence of data transformations” (see e.g. Behzadi par. [0212] 2nd-6th words “how data can be transformed”). Sekiguchi’s allegedly generic operations would still teach to Behzadi’s transformation operations. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s remaining arguments refer to and rely on those addressed above and are similarly unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0265971 to Behzadi et al. (Behzadi) in view of US 2015/0254309 to Sekiguchi et al. (Sekiguchi).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Behzadi discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a first data model from a data exploration phase performed in a first environment, the first data model comprising first metadata (par. [0212] “A first data model 706a, par. [0154] “data models for a specific type of data or industry, par. [0197] “declared in metadata”);
obtaining a second data model from the data exploration phase performed in a second environment different from the first environment, the second data model comprising second metadata (par. [0212] “a second data model 706b”, par. [0197] “declared in metadata”); and
generating a third data model comprising one or more software artifacts using the first metadata and the second metadata (par. [0212] “first transformation rule 708a … second transformation rule 708b defines how to transform data [to] the canonical data model 702”);
wherein each of the one or more software artifacts is configured as one or more files that are configured for execution of at least one artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) application (par. [0231] “use and deploy large-scale machine learning applications”, par. [0293] “an application include files”); and
wherein generating the third data model comprises:
combining at least a portion of the first data model (e.g. par. [0212] “first data model 706a”) and at least a portion of the second data model (e.g. par. [0212] “second data model 706b”) into the third data model (par. [0212] “canonical data model 702”), representing data operation to be performed as part of a respective sequence of data transformations (par. [0212] “data can be transformed”); and
iteratively generating multiple versions of the third data model based on input received from at least one frontend of the first environment and at least one frontend of the second environment (par. [0298] “find and fix application problems … improve collaboration between development and operations personnel”, par. [0156] “canonical data modes may be extensible … deployment evolves and grows”).
Behzadi does not explicitly disclose:
combining at least a portion of a first graph associated with the first data model and at least a portion of a second graph associated with the second data model into a third graph associated with the third data model, each graph comprising nodes representing data operation to be performed as part of a respective sequence of data transformations.
Sekiguchi teaches:
combining at least a portion of a first graph and at least a portion of a second graph into a third graph (par. [0163] “a merge process … graphs 61 through 64 are combined into one graph 65”), each graph comprising nodes representing data operation to be performed as part of a respective sequence of data transformations (par. [0163] “A node … representing and operation”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine first and second graphs into a third graph. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known means of performing such transformations which would have produced only the expected results (see e.g. Behzadi [0174] “uses graph structures of semantic queries with nodes, edges, and properties to represent and store data”, Sekiguchi “graph database 170”).
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claims 1, 8, and 15 wherein:
generating the third data model further comprises generating third metadata associated with the third data model using the first metadata and the second metadata (par. [0212] “canonical data model 702 … data model 706a … data model 706b … transformation rule 708a … transformation rule 708b”); and
each of the first, second, and third metadata comprises information defining corresponding data transformations for creating one or more features or feature sets for use in a machine learning model (par. [0213] “place the data in the format needed for processing by the second application”, par. [0231] “use and deploy large-scale machine learning applications”).
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claim 1, 8 and 15, wherein generating the third data model further comprises:
performing one or more operations on at least one of the first data model and the second data model, the one or more operations defining one or more of the corresponding data transformations (par. [0212] “canonical data model 702 … data model 706a … data model 706b … transformation rule 708a … transformation rule 708b”); and
generating the one or more software artifacts using the one or more of the corresponding data transformations (par. [0213] “place the data in the format needed for processing by the second application”).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claims 3, 10 and 17, wherein the one or more operations are performed using an intermediate representation that maintains a sequence of the one or more of the corresponding data transformations, the intermediate representation comprising a context associated with the one or more of the corresponding data transformations (par. [0197] “The output of the data transformation step is one or more data messages, each of which corresponds to a specific type and the transformation results are persisted”).
Claims 6, 13 and 20: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claims 1, 8 and 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input is received from multiple users via the at least one frontend of the first environment and the at least one frontend of the second environment (par. [0388] “user edits from a manual editing … via a web user interface. Modified records may be stored as a new version, or an audit history”, par. [0298] “collaboration between development and operations personnel or division of a company”).
Claims 7 and 14: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claims 1 and 8, wherein the one or more files are human-readable and machine-executable (par. [0335] “server HTML.5, … code for API calls and/or the like”).
Claims 21, 22 and 23: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein the first environment does not support collaboration at a software artifact level (par. [0434] “native format for the environment (for example, … PandasTM …)”).
Claim 24: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claim 1, wherein each graph is not tied to a particular execution engine (Behzadi par. [0155] “any model that is application agnostic”, par. [0212] “the first application … transform data in the format needed for processing by the second application”, this appears to be at least similar to what is described in applicant’s par. [0057]).
Claim 25: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claim 1, wherein the input includes at least one of iteratively modified first metadata or iteratively modified second metadata (Behzadi par. [0298] “find and fix application problems … improve collaboration between development and operations personnel”, e.g. par. [0213] “a new application is added”).
Claim 26: Behzadi and Sekiguchi teach claim 1, wherein the third graph identifies an operation not included in a third environment associated with the third data model (Behzadi par. [0212] “the first application … transform data in the format needed for processing by the second application”, this appears at least similar to what is disclosed, e.g., in applicant’s par. [0069]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,761,813 to Echeverria et al., and US 11,373,119 to Doshi et al. teach data transformation operations.
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
Prosecution Insights