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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed 03 November 2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the manipulation of data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the timeline context" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the manipulation of data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the timeline context" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by GRIFFITH (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2018/0314705).
1. GRIFFITH discloses A system for preventing breaking changes due to schema evolution comprising: a network (see abstract: system of networked collaborative datasets; [0047]: data interoperability over disparate computing system platforms); a dataset within the network (see [0047]: dataset having a first format); data within the dataset structured by a data format (see [0049]: receiving data representing a set of data); and data coordinates comprising at least one component for uniquely identifying data within the dataset (see [0085]: addressable identifiers to uniquely identify units of data); wherein the data comprises structural data that is managed in the same manner as data (see [0049]: set of data can be CSV, XML, JSON, XLS, unstructured, etc.); and wherein the at least one components are determined by the data format (see [0085]: addressable identifiers to link data in a first format and a dataset in a second format).
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the data format comprises at least one of: row store, column store, JSON, parquet, XML, HTML and in-memory cache (see [0049]: set of data can be CSV, XML, JSON, XLS, unstructured, etc.).
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the data coordinates for JSON and parquet data formats comprise a key ID being used to identify data within the dataset (see [0101]: addressable identifier to identify a row, column and table; [0104]: reference a unit of data at a particular row or column).
8. GRIFFITH discloses A method for preventing breaking changes due to schema evolution comprising: providing a network (see abstract: system of networked collaborative datasets; [0047]: data interoperability over disparate computing system platforms); providing a dataset within the network (see [0047]: dataset having a first format); providing data within the dataset organized in a data format (see [0049]: receiving data representing a set of data); uniquely identifying data within the dataset using data coordinates comprising at least one component (see [0085]: addressable identifiers to uniquely identify units of data); and managing structural data as data (see [0049]: set of data can be CSV, XML, JSON, XLS, unstructured, etc.).
9. The method of claim 8, the data format comprises at least one of: row store, column store, JSON, parquet, and in-memory cache (see [0049]: set of data can be CSV, XML, JSON, XLS, unstructured, etc.).
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the data coordinates for JSON and parquet data formats comprise a key ID being used to identify data within the dataset (see [0101]: addressable identifier to identify a row, column and table; [0104]: reference a unit of data at a particular row or column).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRIFFITH (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2018/0314705) in view of JACOB (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2017/0364703).
6. The system of claim 1 (see GRIFFITH above), wherein the system further comprises a time context having a timestamp and timeline ID; the timestamp being used to provide the time context to the manipulation of data; and the timeline ID being used to identify the timeline context for the data coordinates (see JACOB below).
JACOB discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by GRIFFITH: wherein the system further comprises a time context having a timestamp and timeline ID (see [0070]: version controller tracks changes made to data over time, maintain pointers to previous data); the timestamp being used to provide the time context to the manipulation of data (see [0072]-[0073]: first and second versions of data persist and can be accessed at any time); and the timeline ID being used to identify the timeline context for the data coordinates (see [0073]: atomized data points allow for access to the current version of the data or the previous version). Having a version controller allows for tracking of changes over time and keeping subsequent versions without commensurate increases in memory (see [0073]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify GRIFFITH to include a time context, as disclosed by JACOB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to track changes of data over time, as taught by JACOB. GRIFFITH and JACOB are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to managing datasets.
7. The system of claim 1 (see GRIFFITH above), wherein the system further comprises an autonomous historical log for keeping a record of all manipulations made to the data (see JACOB below).
JACOB discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by GRIFFITH: wherein the system further comprises an autonomous historical log for keeping a record of all manipulations made to the data (see JACOB [0070]: pointers to reference previous versions of data to track changes over time). Having a version controller allows for tracking of changes over time and keeping subsequent versions without commensurate increases in memory (see [0073]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify GRIFFITH to include a time context, as disclosed by JACOB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to track changes of data over time, as taught by JACOB. GRIFFITH and JACOB are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to managing datasets.
13. The method of claim 8 (see GRIFFITH above), wherein the method further comprises: providing a time context having a timestamp and timeline ID; the timestamp being used to provide the time context to the manipulation of data; and the timeline ID being used to identify the timeline context for the data coordinates (see JACOB below).
JACOB discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by GRIFFITH: wherein the system further comprises a time context having a timestamp and timeline ID (see [0070]: version controller tracks changes made to data over time, maintain pointers to previous data); the timestamp being used to provide the time context to the manipulation of data (see [0072]-[0073]: first and second versions of data persist and can be accessed at any time); and the timeline ID being used to identify the timeline context for the data coordinates (see [0073]: atomized data points allow for access to the current version of the data or the previous version). Having a version controller allows for tracking of changes over time and keeping subsequent versions without commensurate increases in memory (see [0073]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify GRIFFITH to include a time context, as disclosed by JACOB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to track changes of data over time, as taught by JACOB. GRIFFITH and JACOB are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to managing datasets.
14. The method of claim 8 (see GRIFFITH above), wherein the method further comprises providing an autonomous historical log for keeping a record of all manipulations made to the data (see JACOB below).
JACOB discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by GRIFFITH: wherein the system further comprises an autonomous historical log for keeping a record of all manipulations made to the data (see JACOB [0070]: pointers to reference previous versions of data to track changes over time). Having a version controller allows for tracking of changes over time and keeping subsequent versions without commensurate increases in memory (see [0073]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify GRIFFITH to include a time context, as disclosed by JACOB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to track changes of data over time, as taught by JACOB. GRIFFITH and JACOB are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to managing datasets.
Claims 3 and 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the state of the art fails to anticipate, or render obvious, “… wherein the data coordinates for a row or column store data format comprises a uniquely identifiable virtual address comprising: the data coordinates having a network ID; dataset ID; and a record ID; the network ID being used to identify the network the data is located in; the dataset ID being used to identify the dataset the data is located in; and the record ID being used to identify the data located in the data format.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BRODT [2017/0075940] discloses associating timestamp information to track changes to rows in a database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J DUDEK JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00A-4:00P.
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, Hosain T Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/EDWARD J DUDEK JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132