DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant Arguments filed on 1/2/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-12, 14-22 are pending in the application.
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 filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the newly amended limitation on pages 10-13 that the cited references fail to disclose: "(1)"establishing, by the electronic device, a bidirectional association relationship between the first data table and the second data table through the associated field; and automatically creating, based on the bidirectional association relationship, a matching field corresponding to the associated field in the second data table" (2) ''updating synchronously in the second data table in response to updating of data corresponding to the associated field in the first data table, and updating synchronously in the first data table in response to updating of data corresponding to the matching field in the second data table, to perform bidirectional synchronization updating between the first data table and the second data table”, please see the new combination of references in relating to the amended limitations cited below.
Specification, para. 28-29 teaches that “The first data table and the second data table may record different contents. For example, the first data table is the student table and the second data table is the course schedule”. “In some application scenarios, the first data table and the second data table may be the same data table”.
Bracholdt et al. teaches in para. 41-42: automated or semi-automated data mapping or schema alignment processing may make achieving the consolidated view easier; para. 56: table can reference records associated with the primary key of another table through the use of a foreign key. For example, the license number table 216 has an attribute 220d for a Car_Serial_No in table 216 that is a foreign key and is associated with the corresponding attribute 220a of table 204. The use of a foreign key can serve various purposes. The foreign key can link particular tuples in different tables; para. 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional
Ziemann further teaches at para. 69: supports bidirectional synchronization. Thus, any modification or updating of data in one table would be updated to the associating table(s)/row(s) etc. Please see the new combination of references cited below
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) 1-2, 5-7, 10-12, 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracholdt et al. (US 2020349129) in view of Crim et al. (US 7562091) and further in view of Hugh (US 20030227487) and Ziemann et al. (US 20120109887).
As per claims 1, 18, 20, Bracholdt et al. teaches
obtaining a first data table and a second data table; and determining an associated field in the first data table; creating a matching field corresponding to the associated field in the second data table (para. 5: the nodes of the first set of nodes may represent database tables and at least a portion of the links between nodes of the first set of nodes may represent foreign key relationships. Input identifying a source node in the first representation to be mapped to one or more nodes in the second representation may be received; fig. 2: matching association field between tables; para. 60: if the tables were represented in a graph, each table may be a node. Paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional. However, different paths between tables form different edges);
establishing a bidirectional association relationship between the first data table and the second data table through the associated field (fig. 2: bidirectional association relationship between the first data table, e.g., License Holder table holds a foreign key to License Number table and another foreign key to the Car table. Said keys link two tables where each record can relate to multiple records in the other, creating bidirectional association; para. 56-58, 60-63: a graph that includes a plurality of nodes, where each node is connected to one or more other nodes through one or more edges. Edges may be bidirectional or unidirectional. The nodes can represent data sources, such as tables in a relational database. The edges can represent relationships between tables. For example, an edge can represent a primary-foreign key relationship, an association-alternate key relationship, or some other relationship; para. 105: allow a user to receive or display a set of options for mapping a target data object, to select an option for mapping, change mappings; para. 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional),
automatically creating, based on the bidirectional association relationship, a matching field corresponding to the associated field in the second data table (para. 41-42: automated or semi-automated data mapping or schema alignment processing may make achieving the consolidated view easier; para. 56: table can reference records associated with the primary key of another table through the use of a foreign key. For example, the license number table 216 has an attribute 220d for a Car_Serial_No in table 216 that is a foreign key and is associated with the corresponding attribute 220a of table 204. The use of a foreign key can serve
various purposes. The foreign key can link particular tuples in different tables; para. 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional);
wherein a target permission for using the first data table is set for a target user in the establishing of the bidirectional association relationship, the target user being a user associated with the second data table (fig. 7: a user can eliminate paths from the paths of fig. 4 in order to obtain a desired path, thus, paths can be reduced between the target nodes; para. 5: the nodes of the first set of nodes may represent database tables and at least a portion of the links between nodes of the first set of nodes may represent foreign key relationships; para. 59-60: paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 70-72: a request to modify or retrieve/select statement requires read and/or write access rights; para. 100: the data objects may be linked to each other by the relationships. For example, a first table may be linked to a second table by a relationship. The relationship may be implemented as a foreign key field (e.g. column) in the first table defined as pointing to or linking to the second table (e.g. a given row in the second table based on the value in the foreign key field)).
Even if Bracholdt does not explicitly teach automatically creating, based on the bidirectional association relationship, a matching field corresponding to the associated field in the second data table,
Crim et al. teaches said limitations at col. 3:38-51: a record can be automatically created and entered for the user by a database program. Moreover, the database program can ensure that the newly created record is properly linked to others related records. Conventionally, a new record can be created in the child table, and data can be propagated from the child to the parent table; col. 4:57-63: automatically identify the records that are related to the new record which should be created for the user. In addition, appropriate values can automatically be propagated by the database program between the new record and related records even though the new record is related to at least one intermediate table between the parent and the child table; claim 1: copying match values from the next child record of the child record to the other parent record when said determining (a) determines to propagate said one or more values; entering, by said database program, said data into a field of said first record; (b) determining, by said database program, whether to propagate one or more values stored in common fields between said first, second, and at least one intermediate table in order to establish said bidirectional relationship for said first record; and automatically propagating, by said database program, at least one of said values stored in said common fields between said first, second, and at least one intermediate table in both directions, thereby automatically creating said bidirectional relationship between said first record and one or more records of said second table and at least one intermediate table.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt and the automatically creating the matching field of Crim to effectively filter data in both directions, eliminate the need of building joins thus, save times.
Bracholdt and Crim et al. do not teach target permission.
Huge teaches para. 19: enables user permissions to be attached not only to data items, but to relationships between data items; fig. 37, para. 431: links associated with data between tables; para. 597-598: control the degree of sharing by assigning any number of groups or users the permission to read, edit, delete, or link to each piece of content. A user at one client station can publish the matrix (or a portion of the matrix) to a shared network of other users. A user at another client station can access and modify that shared matrix. However, another user can access that shared matrix but cannot modify it. Still another user cannot even access a high security-sensitive portion of the matrix while others can; para. 131-132, 602-603: each user to have a different point of view based on their login. The relationships (or links) that are visible will be different based on the permissions granted to that user in the access control lists. Each thought has a unique Access Control List (ACL) associated with it, and an ACL for each of the content items belonging to that thought. As the thought is loaded from the shared matrix, the TeamBrain server checks the user's access privileges for the thought. If the user does not have access privileges to read the thought, the thought is not displayed/invisible on the plex; para. 1163, 736: market group’s permission object is set to +R -W, the read is granted (01) and the write permission is denied).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and the target permission of a user with database objects of Hugh to effectively monitor the accessing/display the permitted views of data to the users.
Bracholdt, Crim and Huge do not teach updating synchronously in the second data table in response to updating of data corresponding to the associated field in the first data table.
Ziemann et al. teaches
wherein the method further comprises: updating synchronously in the second data table in response to updating of data corresponding to the associated field in the first data table, and updating synchronously in the first data table in response to updating of data corresponding to the matching field in the second data table, to perform bidirectional synchronization updating between the first data table and the second data table (para. 39, 59: updates to any rows of the first table are copied to the corresponding rows of the second table. In step 212, if an extra row is present in the second table that does not exist in the first table (e.g., because that row was deleted from the first table), the extra row is deleted from the second table to agree with the first table. In step 214, the synchronization of the two tables may be validated. For example, validation may be performed by performing a comparison to verify the two tables contain the same number of rows and/or the rows contain the same field values; fig. 2; para. 69: supports bidirectional synchronization, from quote to opportunity or opportunity to quote, and a function is included for specifying the direction of synchronization);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim, Huge and the bidirectional synchronization updating of the first data table and the second data table of Ziemann et al. to effectively synchronizing updated fields so entities access to same data.
As per claim 2, Bracholdt, Crim do not explicitly teach claim 2.
Hugh teaches
wherein the target permission comprises one of the following: the first data table being invisible, the first data table being visible but non-editable, the associated field being non-editable, a target row being invisible, the target row is visible but non-editable, a target column being invisible, or the target column being visible but non-editable (para. 19: enables user permissions to be attached not only to data items, but to relationships between data items; fig. 37; para. 431: links associated with data between tables; para. 597-598: control the degree of sharing by assigning any number of groups or users the permission to read, edit, delete, or link to each piece of content. A user at one client station can publish the matrix (or a portion of the matrix) to a shared network of other users. A user at another client station can access and modify that shared matrix. However, another user can access that shared matrix but cannot modify it. Still another user cannot even access a high security-sensitive portion of the matrix while others can; para. 131-132, 602-603: each user to have a different point of view based on their login. The relationships (or links) that are visible will be different based on the permissions granted to that user in the access control lists. Each thought has a unique Access Control List (ACL) associated with it, and an ACL for each of the content items belonging to that thought. As the thought is loaded from the shared matrix, the TeamBrain server checks the user's access privileges for the thought. If the user does not have access privileges to read the thought, the thought is not displayed/invisible on the plex; para. 1163, 736: market group’s permission object is set to +R -W, the read is granted (01) and the write permission is denied).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and the target permission of a user with database objects of Hugh to effectively monitor the accessing/display the permitted views of data to the users.
As per claim 5, Bracholdt et al. teaches at fig. 2: tables can be related by foreign keys or associations, and multiple pathways between tables can exist – matching fields: Car Table contains Car_Serial_No as an identifier/primary key which is associated with the Licence Holder Table’s foreign key: Car_Serial_No; para. 41: each table can include many different fields; para. 55-56: for a particular table, one or more of the attributes can serve as a primary key-uniquely identifying particular records in the tuple and being designated as the main method of accessing tuples in the table; para. 70.
Even if Bracholdt et al. does not explicitly teach an identification of the matching field,
Crim teaches at col. 5:25-31: the "Teachers" table 202 and "Classes" table 204 are related by a related field, namely, a Teacher-ID field that appears as "Teachers::ID" 206 in "Teachers" table 202 and as "Classes:: teacher-ID" 214 in the "Classes" table 204. Each one of the "Teachers::ID" 206 and as "Classes:: teacher-ID" 214 may also be referred to as a "match" field; col. 6:54-67: since the newly created Enrollment record 330 does not have a value in the Class-ID field 312--the "matching" field that relates the "Enrollment 302" to "Classes" 204, a new record in "Classes 204" is not created. As a result, the value from a match field of an existing record in the intermediate table (e.g., "Classes" 204) is copied into the newly created target record (e.g., "Enrollment" record 330). In this example, the value ("103") from the ID Field of the matching record 332 in the "Classes" 204 is copied to the Class-ID filed of the new enrollment record.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt and the matching field comprises at least a part of an identification of the associated field of Crim to effectively display views of tables to the users.
Hugh also teaches
wherein an identification of the matching field comprises at least a part of an identification of the associated field (fig. 37: Customer Table, e.g., ID 111 associate or has a matching filed in the Order Table with the order number 990815 etc.; para. 486-488: "customer: Acme Widgets" is sales representative. Based on the table, the particular sales representative for "Acme Widgets" is employee Bob Johnson. They are linked through representative ID 200 in the Customer Table and ID 200 in the Employee Table/an identification of the matching field).
As per claim 6, Bracholdt et al. teaches
displaying a data view of the second data table based on a trigger operation of the user for the associated field (para. 98: data objects 808 (e.g., database tables or views), which definitions can define one or more relationships 809 between the data objects, including between schema elements of the data objects (such as relationships between a field of a first table and a field of a second table, such as a foreign key relationship or an association; para. 105: The user interface 802 may provide a user with a display of identified mappings between database 1 806 and database 2 812, such as a visualization of the database schemas and their alignment or mapping. The user interface/API 802 may allow a user to select a data object (e.g. out of 808) to map to one or more objects in another data model. The user interface/API 802 may allow a user to receive or display a set of options for mapping a target data object. The user interface/ API 802 may allow a user to select an option for mapping, change mappings).
Bracholdt and Crim et al. do not explicitly teach in response to that a view of the first data table is not locked.
Hugh teaches
in response to that a view of the first data table is not locked, displaying a data view of the second data table based on a trigger operation of the user for the associated field (para. 769: while a Client is modifying a data item, the Server lists that item as being "locked", and in a preferred embodiment, no subsequent request by another Client to modify that data item will be permitted until that data item is "unlocked". The data item is "unlocked" when the Server removes it from the list of locked items once the first Client's request to modify has been completed; para. 254-255: Various thought filter types are provided to allow the user to customize his matrix view. The system may display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and displaying a modified table of Hugh to effectively display selected views of tables to the users.
As per claim 7, Bracholdt et al. teaches
displaying a data view of the second data table based on a trigger operation of the user for the associated field (para. 98: data objects 808 (e.g., database tables or views), which definitions can define one or more relationships 809 between the data objects, including between schema elements of the data objects (such as relationships between a field of a first table and a field of a second table, such as a foreign key relationship or an association; para. 105: The user interface 802 may provide a user with a display of identified mappings between database 1 806 and database 2 812, such as a visualization of the database schemas and their alignment or mapping. The user interface/API 802 may allow a user to select a data object (e.g. out of 808) to map to one or more objects in another data model. The user interface/API may allow a user to receive or display a set of options for mapping a target data object. The user interface/ API 802 may allow a user to select an option for mapping, change mappings).
Bracholdt, Crim et al. does not explicitly teach in response to that a view of the first data table is not locked.
Hugh teaches
wherein displaying the data view of the second data table comprises: in response to that the view of the first data table is not locked, displaying complete table data of the second data table (para. 769: while a Client is modifying a data item, the Server lists that item as being "locked", and in a preferred embodiment, no subsequent request by another Client to modify that data item will be permitted until that data item is "unlocked". The data item is "unlocked" when the Server removes it from the list of locked items once the first Client's request to modify has been completed; para. 255: the user may customize the appearance of the regenerated matrix. The system may display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and displaying a modified table of Hugh to effectively display tables to the users.
As per claim 10, Bracholdt et al. teaches
setting a range of records of the second data table bidirectionally associated with the first data table in a state where the associated field is selected (para. 5: the nodes of the second set of nodes may represent database tables and at least a portion of the links between nodes of the second set of nodes may represent foreign key relationships; para. 18: tables can be related by foreign keys or associations, and how multiple pathways between tables can exist; para. 59-60: between two tables, multiple, different pathways can exist. For example, table 208 can access tuples of table 216 through the foreign key attribute. Paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 70-71: a request to retrieve or modify data, such as a SQL statement, would typically be constructed differently depending on whether attribute 334a or attribute 334b was being accessed (e.g., SELECT … WHERE ATTRIBUTE334A = VALUE versus SELECT ... WHERE ATTRIBUTE334B=VALUE); para. 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional).
Bracholdt, Crim et al. does not explicitly teach the range of records of the
associated field.
Hugh (US 20030227487) teaches said limitations at para. 316-320: thoughts associated with the SALES table where "TOTAL_SALES" is greater than 1,000. The user can regenerate his matrix based on entering the filter criteria of those thoughts associated with the EMPLOYEE table where "HIRE DATE" is earlier than Dec. 31, 1998. Furthermore, the user may want the matrix to display only those thoughts that match this criteria; para. 255: display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and determining the range of records of the associated field of Hugh to effectively filter fields/thoughts when searching or creating thought lists – See Hugh, para. 129.
As per claim 11, Bracholdt et al. teaches at para. 60-63: paths between tables 204, 208, 212, 216 can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 54: tables can be connected via multiple pathways, and how pathways can be through different table attributes. FIG. 2 illustrates a table 204 representing a car, a table 208 representing a license holder (e.g., a driver having a driver's license), a table 212 providing an accident history, and a table 216 representing a license number (e.g., associated with a license plate); para. 56-58: a table can reference records associated with the primary key of another table through the use of a foreign key; foreign keys can also be used to maintain database consistency, where a change to a primary key value can be propagated to a table where the attribute is a foreign key.
Bracholdt, Crim et al. does not explicitly teach determining the range of records of the associated field.
Hugh teaches
wherein the setting a range of records of the second data table bidirectionally associated with the first data table in a state where the associated field is selected comprises: in response to a presetting operation of the user for the associated field, displaying a filtering criteria entry; determining the range of records of the associated field that is bidirectionally associated with the second data table based on a filtering criteria set by the user at the filtering criteria entry (fig. 33 shows a sample user interface and an exemplary filtered plex, based on the filter criteria selected; para. 316-320: thoughts associated with the SALES table where "TOTAL_SALES" is greater than 1,000. The user can regenerate his matrix based on entering the filter criteria of those thoughts associated with the EMPLOYEE table where "HIRE DATE" is earlier than Dec. 31, 1998. Furthermore, the user may want the matrix to display only those thoughts that match this criteria; para. 255: display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and determining the range of records of the associated field of Hugh to effectively filter fields/thoughts when searching or creating thought lists – See Hugh, para. 129.
As per claims 12, Bracholdt et al. teaches
wherein determining an associated field in the first data table, and establishing a bidirectional association relationship between the first data table and the second data table through the associated field comprises: selecting, in the second data table, at least two records that are bidirectionally associated with the associated field in the first data table (para. 59: between two tables, multiple, different pathways can exist. For example, table 208 can access tuples of table 216 through the foreign key attributes 220h, 220i of table 208; para. 70-71: a request to retrieve or modify data, such as a SQL statement, would typically be constructed differently depending on whether attribute 334a or attribute 334b was being accessed (e.g., SELECT … WHERE ATTRIBUTE334A = VALUE versus SELECT ... WHERE ATTRIBUTE334B=VALUE); para. 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional).
As per claim 16, Bracholdt, Crim et al. do not explicitly teach claim 16,
Hugh (US 20030227487) teaches
wherein the associated field corresponds to a matching field (para. 255: display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria), and the method further comprises:
in response to receiving an instruction for deleting the associated field, displaying first delete indication information, the first delete indication information being used to indicate that the associated field is associated with the matching field, and to indicate that an association relationship there between is to be removed first or in response to receiving an instruction for deleting the matching field, displaying a second delete indication message, the second delete indication message being used to indicate that the matching field is associated with the associated field, and to indicate that the association relationship therebetween is to be removed first (figs. 61, 81: delete a matching field/thought; para. 161, 171: removing the link to the thought first). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and the removing the link/association relationship first of Hugh to prevent the accessing or manipulating of said field/thought.
As per claim 17, Bracholdt et al. teaches
converting the bidirectional association relationship to a unidirectional association relationship based on a received conversion operation for an association relationship (para. 54-58, 60-63: paths between tables 204, 208, 212, 216 can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 105: the user interface/API 802 may allow a user to receive or display a set of options for mapping a target data object. The user interface/ API 802 may allow a user to select an option for mapping, change mappings).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracholdt et al. (US 2020349129) in view of Crim et al. (US 7562091) and further in view of Hugh (US 20030227487), Ziemann et al. (US 20120109887) and Kodera (US 20210377403).
As per claim 21, Bracholdt et al. teaches
wherein the establishing, by the electronic device, of the bidirectional association relationship between the first data table and the second data table through the associated field comprises: in response to a predetermined operation on the associated field, displaying a selection item for indicating an establishment of the bidirectional association relationship with other data tables (para. 55-58, 60-62: if the tables were represented in a graph, each table may be a node. Paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional. However, different paths between tables form different edges; para. 83, 93-94: the selected path might be enlarged, displayed in a different color. Selecting a path may also present operations, such as SQL statements. A user may also select tables or connections to be placed on a list of required tables or connections or a list of prohibited tables or connections. For example, a user may perform a pointing action, such as right-clicking, on a node or connection to display a list of options; para. 105: selecting a path may also present operations, such as SQL statements);
in response to a triggering of the selection item, providing a candidate data table to be associated that comprises the second data table; in response to a selection of the second data table, displaying a permission setting item; and determining the target permission based on a selection operation of the user for the permission setting item (para. 59-60: paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 70-72: a request to modify or retrieve/select statement requires read and/or write access rights; para. 89: when a node is specified as being required, candidate paths are evaluated. When a candidate path is determined to connect a first target and a second target node (i.e., the endpoints of the path), it is determined whether the path includes all intermediate nodes that are required for a valid path).
Even if Bracholdt, Crim do not explicitly teach determining the target permission based on a selection operation of the user for the permission setting item,
Huge teaches para. 19: enables user permissions to be attached not only to data items, but to relationships between data items so that two or more users may view a first data item, yet each view a different set of other data items directly related to that first data item; fig. 37, para. 431: links associated with data between tables; para. 597-598: control the degree of sharing by assigning any number of groups or users the permission to read, edit, delete, or link to each piece of content. A user at one client station can publish the matrix (or a portion of the matrix) to a shared network of other users. A user at another client station can access and modify that shared matrix. However, another user can access that shared matrix but cannot modify it. Still another user cannot even access a high security-sensitive portion of the matrix while others can; para. 699, 736: market group’s permission object is set to +R -W, the read is granted (01) and the write permission is denied).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and the target permission of a user with database objects of Hugh to effectively monitor the accessing/display the permitted views of data to the users).
Even if Bracholdt, Crim, Huge, Ziemann et al. do not explicitly teach in response to a selection of the second data table, displaying a permission setting item,
Kodera teaches
in response to a selection of the second data table, displaying a permission setting item (para. 62: determines whether the determination has been made for all of the setting items (including the major items with no minor items, and the minor items included in the other major items) for the target function. When determining that the determination in has been made for not all of the setting items for the target function (S220: No), the control program 74 goes back to 5216, and executes 5216 and the following steps. Namely, the control program 74 determines whether the display permission is given or not to (i.e., the display permission is set to “TRUE” or “FALSE” for) each of all the setting items (including the major items with no minor items, and the minor items included in the other major items) for the target function. Then, setting items to which the display permission is given (i.e., setting items for which the display permission is set to “TRUE”) are set as display items).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim, Huge, Ziemann et al. and the displaying a permission setting item of Kodera to effectively manage and monitor the accessing/display the permitted views of data to the users).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracholdt et al. (US 2020349129), in view of Crim (US 7562091) and further in view of Hugh (US 20030227487), Ziemann et al. (US 20120109887) and Barg (US 20020070953).
As per claim 8, Bracholdt et al. teaches at para. 94: a user may also select tables or connections to be placed on a list of required tables or connections or a list of prohibited tables or connections; para. 98: data objects (e.g., database tables or views), which definitions can define one or more relationships between the data objects, including between schema elements of the data objects (such as relationships between a field of a first table and a field of a second table, such as a foreign key relationship or an association; para. 105: provide a user with a display of identified mappings between database 1 and database 2, such as a visualization of the database schemas and their alignment or mapping, allow a user to select a data object (e.g. out of 808) to map to one or more objects in another data model.
Bracholdt, Crim et al. does not explicitly teach wherein displaying the data view of the second data table comprises: in response to that the view of the first data table is not locked.
Hugh teaches
wherein displaying the data view of the second data table comprises: in response to that the view of the first data table is not locked, displaying a view/table corresponding to data in the second data table based on a selection of the user (figs. 61-63: standard view, permission, lock, check for existing lock; para. 769: while a Client is modifying a data item, the Server lists that item as being "locked", and in a preferred embodiment, no subsequent request by another Client to modify that data item will be permitted until that data item is "unlocked". The data item is "unlocked" when the Server removes it from the list of locked items once the first Client's request to modify has been completed; para. 254-255: various thought filter types are provided to allow the user to customize his matrix view. The system may display those thoughts that match the filter criteria, that do not match the filter criteria, or otherwise visually indicate those thoughts that either did or did not match the filter criteria; para. 780). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim and displaying a modified table of Hugh to effectively display views of tables to the users.
Bracholdt, Crim Hugh, and Ziemann et al. do not explicitly teach displaying a chart corresponding to data in the second data table.
Barg teaches
displaying a chart corresponding to data in the second data table (para. 162-163: the particular interactive single dimensional views and the various multidimensional views associated with the selected set of dimensions and measures corresponding to that selected workflow control entry 416 in the tree structure workflow control view 410 to be automatically populated with the corresponding data from the conditioned data warehouse. Automatically populates the bar chart and sets the analysis pane to the most useful data and display for that particular set of dimensions and measures).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim, Hugh, Ziemann et al. and displaying a chart of Barg to effectively display selected views or tables in different formats to the users for better manipulations and/or viewing of data.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracholdt et al. (US 2020349129) in view of Crim (US 7562091) and further in view of Hugh (US 20030227487), Ziemann et al. (US 20120109887) and Zadeh (US 20140201126).
As per claims 14-15, Bracholdt, Crim et al. do not explicitly teach searching by means of fuzzy query.
Hugh (US 20030227487) teaches
searching for at least one record in the first data table or the second data table by a fuzzy query; wherein searching for at least one record by the fuzzy query comprises: searching for a record matching each of at least one keyword based on the at least one keyword inputted by the fuzzy query (para. 336: “fuzzy” or the system will retrieve all thoughts and documents having any of the words that are entered in the filter criteria; para. 463). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim et al. and fuzzy query of Huge to effectively display selected views or tables in different formats to the users for better manipulations and/or viewing of data.
Even if Bracholdt, Crim, Hugh and Ziemann et al. do not explicitly teach searching by means of fuzzy query,
Zadeh teaches fuzzy search at para. 2239, 2285-2287: for query, we have fuzzy query, which looks for entries based on fuzzy indexes or criteria, such as "much bigger than 100", to order the entries and filter or select entries or rows of data. For fuzzy criteria, we can use the membership functions and values of the objects. To speed up the calculations, we can use centroid or center-of-mass of the regions under the curve, for expected values.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bracholdt, Crim, Hugh, Ziemann et al. and the fuzzy query of Zadeh so that the system can handle contradictory and duplicative information to sort them out and make a conclusion from various inputs – See Zadeh, para. 795.
As per claim 22, Bracholdt teaches
in establishing the bidirectional association relationship between the associated field and the second data table, in response a selection of a multi-record association, bidirectionally to associating, by the electronic device, a plurality of records selected from the second data table with the associated field, the plurality of records comprising a plurality of rows of records or records corresponding to a plurality of cells in the second data table (para. 108-139: an assembling mapping is a many-to-one mapping between three or more data objects,
such as data maintained in multiple source tables being maintained at a single (or, in any event, smaller number) of tables in a target system. Data that is maintained in a single table at a source database system may, for instance, be maintained in multiple tables in a target database system; para. 125: the updated representation may be altered to have additional similar paths (e.g. links, edges, or relationships) between
data objects as the other representation, without having its existing paths removed or changed);
based on a change operation that changes the multi-record association to a single record association, maintaining, by the electronic device, the multi-record association established before the change operation; bidirectionally associating, by the electronic device based on a selection of a single record, the selected single record with the associated field after the change operation (para. 105: receive or display a set of options for mapping a target data object. The user interface/ API 802 may allow a user to select an option for mapping, change mappings, suggest mappings, or identify anchor points for use in mapping; para. 59-60: paths between tables can be edges, which can be unidirectional or bidirectional; para. 56-58, 60-63: a graph that includes a plurality of nodes, where each node is connected to one or more other nodes through one or more edges. Edges may be bidirectional or unidirectional; para. 86, 149: creating a link may include adding to a data object an additional link field or value to a link field with the identifier for the linked data object, and vice versa so the link is bidirectional; para. 108-109: data that is maintained in a single table at a source database system may, for instance, be maintained in multiple tables in a target database system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goodwin et al. (US 8874621) teaches at col. 23:43-54: fig. 13 depicts an exemplary embodiment of creating a look-up field for a dynamic table. In this example, the display name is "Risk Type", the short name is "RiskType", and the look-up table identifies the foreign key relationship as the "Risk Types" table, which is the table against which the foreign key is defined. The current table in which the look-up field is created is the "Risks" table. In this example, the Risks table has an ID field, and the Risk Types table has an ID field. The DCF 210 engine is configured in this example to automatically use the ID field of the source table (here the Risks table) as the primary key reference, and automatically use the ID of the target table (here the Risk Types table) as the foreign key identity.
Mitchell et al. (US 20070094308) teaches at para. 47: a system in which a synchronization mechanism (or "sync mechanism") 440 watches for changes to the event tables 435.sub.1-2 and, when changes occur, ships the changes between the database systems 105.sub.1-2 to ensure synchronization of the tables. The sync mechanism 440 typically ships these changes at the row level, using the row-shipping technique described in connection with the data-sync facility. The sync mechanism 440 in this example is a bidirectional mechanism, allowing changes in either of the database systems to be shipped to the other system for synchronization.
Jain et al. (US 9262282) teaches in claim 1: synchronization of data and recovery of failures during a bidirectional synchronization between two systems, the method comprises the steps of: polling a right data during bidirectional integration between a source system and a target system; synchronizing a new create from the source system to the target system.
Jacobson et al. (US 20120117462) teaches in para. 20-23: User interface 100 can include record list section 104 that can display a list of records of the selected data set. The list of records can be selected based on one or more selection criteria (e.g., a selection criterion specified in a structured query language (SQL) query).
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 LINH BLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-4106. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/LINH BLACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2163 5/23/2026
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights