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 communication is in response to the Amendment filed 6/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Office Action. After a further search and a thorough examination of the present application, claims 1 – 20 remain rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new rejection.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitalia et al. (US 2018/0287902 A1) (‘Chitalia’ herein after) further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0078728 A1) (‘Kim’ herein after) further in view of Burke et al. (US 2015/0134694 A1) (‘Burke’ herein after).
With respect to claim 1, 11,
Chitalia teaches a data analytics system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement an analytics service governance process to generate data visualizations (DVs) of underlying system-level metadata generated by and used to operate an analytics service configured to generate DVs of user-provided datasets by using visualization capabilities of the analytics service itself (paragraphs 84 – 86 teach reports and illustrations presented through the use of a dashboard in graphical or tabular format, Chitalia), the analytics service governance process including: establish a connection to an analytics system database containing the system-level metadata as a dataset (paragraph 86 – 89 teach datasets of various metrics and resources, Chitalia); generate a governance dashboard providing access to pre-generated DV options based on selected system-level metadata related to user-created objects in the analytics system database (figure 9A, 9B, paragraphs 229 – 235 teaches a dashboard representing a collection of user interfaces, providing information on various metrics, Chitalia) wherein the pre-generated DV options correspond to predefined governance views of the system-level metadata (paragraphs 84 – 89 where it teaches that the dashboard may include presenting a report in graphical or tabular forms which are both visualization options. Furthermore Chitalia teaches that such a report may show the resource utilization by each instance that is in a project or scheduled on a host, resource allocations may include static allocations of resources, such as vCPUs, floating IP addresses, and storage volumes, resource usage may show the actual physical resources consumed by an instance, such as CPU usage percentage, memory usage percentage, network I/O, and disk I/O all of which are equivalent of system-level metadata, Chitalia); receive a user selection of object categories and filters from pre-generated DV options and produce a governance DV based on the user selection depicting a relationship of objects at the system level from the object categories (figure 9A, 9B, paragraphs 231 – 240 teaching user input or user interactions with metric selection and generating user interfaces in compliance with the user input and filters applied accordingly, Chitalia).
Chitalia teaches access by administrator and hidden data but it does not teach explicitly as claimed the governance process and dashboard.
However, Kim teaches governance rules and processes with the dashboard to be able to share information without exposing data that is not permitted in paragraphs 84, 86, 88 – 90 stating sensitive assets are in business contexts, and data governance rules and processes may apply to resharing dashboard content as snapshots. Governance for dashboards is often achieved through setting permissions (e.g., who can read, write, and delete), thus dashboard snapshots must go beyond static screenshots to include live visualization content through which existing data governance policies can be enforced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because for references are directed to the same field of study namely, analysis of data with interfaces/dashboards. Furthermore, Kim’s system improves on the system of Chitalia by using dashboards for monitoring and communicating aspects of data, particularly for data professionals having limited programming expertise. Dashboards range from static, magazine-style, and infographic dashboards to analytic, embedded, and repository dashboards. Data professionals tend to use analytic dashboards enabled by business intelligence tools (e.g., Tableau) that often contain a relatively larger number of interactive elements. In order to answer a specific question, one must make selections and adjust parameters or filters.
Chitalia in combination with Kim teaches governance rules and processes with the dashboard to be able to share information including visualization content through which existing data governance policies can be enforced but does not teach explicitly claimed analytics system database not directly queryable by users.
However, Burke teaches analytics system database not directly queryable by users in figure 1 and paragraphs 220 stating that it allows only very restricted access to the data of database. For example, in some configurations client computer may only access database indirectly, this indirect access is equivalent to an internal repository not directly queryable by user. Burke teaches that the server only provides an aggregated summary information and the results of comparative calculations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because for references are directed to the same field of study namely, analysis of data with interfaces/dashboards. Furthermore, Burke modifies the combination of Chitalia and Kim because it incorporates the advantage of visualization comprising display for visualization of a dashboard builder interface, the second display including a visualization of data fields within the database and/or database collection.
With respect to claim 2, 12,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 1, wherein the system-level metadata includes system information generated by operation of the analytics service and required for the analytics service to function (paragraphs 237, 245 – 249, Chitalia).
With respect to claim 3, 13,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 2, wherein the system-level metadata includes information about system-wide objects (paragraphs 237, 245 – 249, Chitalia).
With respect to claim 4, 14,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 3, wherein: the system-level metadata includes protected information not accessible to users and the pre-generated DV options based on the selected metadata are configured to not expose the protected information (paragraphs 84, 86, 88 – 90, Kim).
With respect to claim 5, 15,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 4, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: establish the connection to the analytics system database via a hidden connection configured so that the analytics system database is not directly queryable by users (paragraphs 231 – 233, Chitalia and 220, 451, Burke).
With respect to claim 6, 16,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 5, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: determine whether a user accessing the analytics service is an administrator having access rights to the governance dashboard and withhold access to the governance dashboard when the user is not an administrator (paragraphs 238, 249, Chitalia).
With respect to claim 7, 17,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 6, wherein the governance DV depicts information about objects that influences a performance metric of the analytics service (paragraphs 237, 245 – 249, Chitalia and paragraphs 84, 86, 88 – 90, Kim).
With respect to claim 8, 18,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 7, wherein the analytics service is deployed as a cloud-based service (figure 16, paragraphs 229, 234,238, Chitalia).
With respect to claim 9, 19,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 7, wherein the analytics service is deployed as an on-premises service (paragraphs 230, 235, Chitalia).
With respect to claim 10, 20,
Chitalia as modified teaches the data analytics system of claim 7, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: add the governance DV to the governance dashboard and add additional DVs produced based on the selected metadata from the analytics system database to the governance dashboard (paragraphs 84, 86, 88 – 90, Kim).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210055885 A1 teaches enhanced access using composite data views. It teaches if a user has opened a filtered read/write/modify view of the same data, the data would be unlocked for writing for that user, and shown the same in both the filtered read/write/modify view and the filtered read view.
US 20240111784 A1 teaches listings have filters and filters define specific identity data of users that may view references to the listing when browsing the catalog and they may define a class of users (users of a certain profession, users associated with a particular company or organization, users within a particular geographical area or country) that may view references to the listing.
US 20220043863 A1 teaches products for persisting queries or filters originating from reports within one dashboard and propagating such queries or filters to reports in other dashboards within an information management user interface environment.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVNEET K GMAHL whose telephone number is 571-272-5636.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SANJIV SHAH can be reached on . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAVNEET GMAHL/Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Dated: 9/11/2026
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights