DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed March 9, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo in claims 1, 12 and 19. In the new limitation “wherein the processed metadata comprises at least one of an expended name, a corrected word, or a syntactic analysis,” the examiner believes that the word “expended” should be “expanded.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 recite: performing a check to determine whether the acquired metadata is complete; performing natural language processing on the metadata comprising the one or more missing metadata elements to generate processed metadata, wherein the processed metadata comprises at least one of an expended name, a corrected word, or a syntactic analysis; generating a candidate table name and a table description associated with the candidate table name for a table included in the metadata based on at least the processed metadata; generating a first candidate attribute name, an attribute description associated with the first candidate attribute name, and a corresponding data type for each attribute associated with the table, wherein the first candidate attribute name is generated based on at least the processed metadata and a readability score of a candidate attribute name included in the processed metadata; and generating a second candidate attribute name for each attribute by extracting one or more keywords from the first candidate attribute name, wherein the second candidate attribute name corresponds to a technical name, and wherein the first candidate attribute name is of a different type from the second candidate attribute name. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) determine if metadata is complete, perform natural language processing and generate candidate names, descriptions, and data types as claimed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of acquiring, by at least one processor and via a user interface, metadata associated with a data store; in response to determining that the metadata is incomplete, modifying, by the at least one processor, the user interface to include one or more input fields configured to receive one or more missing metadata elements; modifying, by the at least one processor, the user interface to include the first candidate attribute name, the second candidate attribute name, and the attribute description for each attribute associated with the table; a memory and a processor to perform recited steps. The “acquiring” and “modifying...to receive” limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The “modifying…the user interface to include the first candidate attribute name…” limitation represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Lastly, the memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the “acquiring” limitation is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il. The “modifying...to receive one or more missing metadata elements” limitation is also recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network and presenting offers, and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il. Further, the recitations of modifying the user interface, and a memory and processor to perform recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2, 13, and 20 recite further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can identify PII and tag attributes using the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 2 and 20 do not recite any additional elements. Claim 13 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform claimed limitations. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 2, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 recite a further limitation that falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can match an attribute name with a list of technical attribute names using the human mind.
Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 14 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform the matching. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 3 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4 and 15 recite a further limitation that falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally perform generating a second candidate table name.
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 15 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform the generating. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 4 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 recite further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, generate a body of the name and standardize the body of the name.
Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 16 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform claimed limitations. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 5 and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 recites further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally assign a score and determine the second candidate table name.
Claim 6 does not include any additional elements and thus does not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally compare attribute names and refine the attribute name.
Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 17 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform claimed limitations. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 7 and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, convert data into vectors, determine a similarity score, and identify the data type.
Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 18 recites the additional element of using a processor to perform claimed limitations. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. As such, claims 8 and 18 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 recites the additional elements of providing the user interface for acquiring the metadata from the user; displaying the acquired metadata; and receiving one or modifications to the metadata from the user via the user interface. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations represent mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and presenting offers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 10 recites a further limitation that falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally determine a readability score.
Claim 10 does not include any additional elements and thus does not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 recites further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection lll. For example, a user can mentally extract and rank keywords.
Claim 11 does not include any additional elements and thus does not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosal et al. (US 2024/0160632 A1) (‘Ghosal’) in view of Kraytem et al. (US 10,360,252 B1) (‘Kraytem’), and further in view of Males et al. (US 2020/0097565 A1) (‘Males’).
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 19 Ghosal teaches a computer implemented method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable device comprising:
a memory (paragraphs 158 and 168); and
at least one processor (paragraphs 158 and 169) coupled to the memory and configured to perform:
acquiring, by at least one processor and via a user interface, metadata of a first type associated with a data store (paragraphs 87, 112, and 150);
performing, by the at least one processor, natural language processing on the metadata to generate processed metadata (paragraphs 34 and 63);
generating, by the at least one processor, a candidate table name and a table description (i.e. definitions that describes components of a data source such as database tables, table name, table data types; label indicates a descriptor for a data element and can include a header and name for a table) associated with the candidate table name for a table included in the metadata based on at least the processed metadata (paragraphs 22, 28, 32, 152-153);
generating, by the at least one processor, a first candidate attribute name, an attribute description associated with the first candidate attribute name, and a corresponding data type for each attribute associated with the table, wherein the first candidate attribute name is generated based on at least the processed metadata and a candidate attribute name included in the processed metadata (paragraphs 22, 28, 31 and 152-153);
generating, by the at least one processor, a second candidate attribute name (i.e. recommended term or accepted term such as social security number, serial number, email) for each attribute by extracting one or more keywords from the first candidate attribute name, wherein the second candidate attribute name corresponds to a technical name, and wherein the first candidate attribute name is of a different type from the second candidate attribute name (labels such as “primary email” or “work email” may be assigned the label “email” in paragraph 77; also a second attribute name of “SSN” can be determined for a first attribute name “social” and “SS#” in paragraphs 59 and 118-119)(Figs. 6 and 7, paragraphs 77 and 115-119); and
modifying, by the at least one processor, the user interface to include the first candidate attribute name, the second candidate attribute name, and the attribute description (i.e. sensitive data or not) for each attribute associated with the table (Fig. 7, paragraphs 118-119 and 151).
Ghosal does not explicitly teach performing, by the at least one processor, a check to determine whether the acquired metadata is complete; in response to determining that the metadata is incomplete, modifying, by the at least one processor, the user interface to include one or more input fields configured to receive one or more missing metadata elements; wherein the processed metadata comprises at least one of an expended name, a corrected word, or a syntactic analysis.
Kraytem teaches performing, by the at least one processor, a check to determine whether the acquired metadata is complete (Kraytem, col. 16 lines 30-57 and lines 62-66);
in response to determining that the metadata is incomplete, modifying, by the at least one processor, the user interface to include one or more input fields configured to receive one or more missing metadata elements (Kraytem, col. 16 line 62 – col. 17 line 8; col. 17 lines 25-36; col. 18 lines 4-25 and lines 38-42);
performing, by the at least one processor, natural language processing on the metadata comprising the one or more missing metadata elements to generate processed metadata, wherein the processed metadata comprises at least one of an expended name, a corrected word, or a syntactic analysis (Kraytem, col. 21 lines 15-36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ghosal to check for missing metadata as taught by Kraytem to enable interactive user interfaces for detection and enrichment of missing metadata and intuitive and efficient navigation of data items for determination of the metadata. Further, having missing metadata can cause disruption in data organization and analysis efforts, and thus detecting and correcting missing metadata would prevent such disruption and improve data organization, discovery and analysis efforts (Kraytem, abstract).
Further regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Ghosal does not explicitly teach generating textual elements such as a first candidate attribute name based on a readability score of a candidate attribute name.
Males teaches generating textual elements such as a first candidate attribute name based on a readability score of a candidate attribute name (Readability score for a name is compared to a threshold and used to determine if the name should be changed. User is able to change name based on readability being below threshold.) (paragraphs 11, 18 and 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Ghosal to determine a readability score as taught by Males to enable readability of candidate names in Ghosal to be determined and to generate alerts if the readability score falls below the predetermined readability threshold so that candidate name can be changed to a more readable name, thereby improving the quality of recommended names/labels/textual elements (Males, abstract).
With respect to claims 2, 13, and 20, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches further comprising: identifying personally identifiable information in attributes included in the metadata (Ghosal, paragraphs 22, 32, 114, and 121); and
tagging an attribute corresponding to the identified personally identifiable information (Ghosal, paragraphs 22, 114, and 121).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches wherein identifying the personally identifiable information comprises: matching an attribute name with a list of technical attribute names (Ghosal, paragraphs 40, 59, 61, 119, and 134).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches wherein the candidate table name is a first candidate table name; and wherein the method further comprises: generating a second candidate table name based on one or more of a table type, a table description, and the first candidate table name (Ghosal, paragraphs 28 and 152-153).
With respect to claim 7 and 17, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches wherein the metadata comprises at least an attribute name and an attribute description; and wherein generating the first candidate attribute name for each attribute comprises: comparing the attribute name with one or more attributes names included in a frequent attribute list (Ghosal, paragraphs 21, 23, 75, 112, and 150); and
in response to determining that there is no match between the attribute name and the one or more attributes, refining the attribute name to generate the first candidate attribute name (Ghosal, paragraphs 23, 26, 102-103, 113, and 120).
With respect to claim 9, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches providing the user interface for acquiring the metadata from the user (Ghosal, Fig. 7; paragraphs 78, 94, 97);
displaying the acquired metadata (Ghosal, Fig. 7; paragraphs 78, 94, 97); and
receiving one or modifications to the metadata from the user via the user interface (Ghosal, paragraphs 117 and 119).
With respect to claim 10, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches determining the readability score for the candidate attribute name (Males, paragraphs 11 and 18).
With respect to claim 11, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches wherein generating the second candidate attribute name is based on the first candidate attribute name and the attribute description by extracting and ranking one or more keywords from the first candidate attribute name and the attribute description (determining confidence scores/levels for terms/labels) (Ghosal, paragraphs 33, 61, 80, 85, 115).
Claims 5, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males, as applied to claim 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Chikoti et al. (US 2022/0067294 A1) (‘Chikoti’).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches generating candidate table names.
Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males does not explicitly teach generating a body of the name for the table by applying a keyword extracting algorithm; and standardizing the body of the name to generate the second candidate table name by performing one or more operations, wherein the operations include expanding acronyms, checking syllable length, checking character length, and incorporating a uniqueness and inclusion diversity check.
Chikoti teaches generating a body of the name for the table by applying a keyword extracting algorithm (paragraphs 44 and 48); and
standardizing the body of the name to generate the second candidate table name by performing one or more operations, wherein the operations include expanding acronyms, checking syllable length, checking character length, and incorporating a uniqueness and inclusion diversity check (paragraphs 26, 34, 51, 61; Tables 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the step generating a second candidate table name in Ghosal to comprise generating a body of the name and standardizing the body of the name as taught by Chikoti to enable improved natural language processing that produces a final output that matches original intention (Chikoti, abstract, paragraph 86). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination because Ghosal teaches the ability to use natural language processing to recommend terms by expanding acronyms (see Fig. 6), and thus the modification would entail combining the natural language processing of Chikoti with that of Ghosal to generate recommended names/terms.
With respect to claim 6, Ghosal in view of Kraytem, Males and Chikoti teaches wherein applying the keyword extracting algorithm comprises: assigning a score for each keyword in the metadata (Ghosal, paragraphs 33 and 61; Chikoti, paragraphs 65 and 77-78); and
determining the second candidate table name by identifying one or more keywords based on the score (Chikoti, paragraphs65, 78 and 86; tables 1 and 2).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Toledano et al. (US 12,204,873 B1) (‘Toledano’).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males teaches:
identifying data types based on score (paragraphs 33 and 61).
Ghosal in view of Kraytem and Males does not explicitly teach converting textual data for an attribute of the metadata into vectors by determining a relevancy score; determining a similarity score between the vectors and a centroid associated with a data type; and identifying the data type for the attribute based on the similarity score.
Toledano teaches converting textual data for an attribute of the metadata into vectors by determining a relevancy score (col. 11 lines 25-28);
determining a similarity score between the vectors (col. 7 lines 42-46; col. 15 lines 13-24) and a centroid associated with a data type (col. 11 lines 32-40); and
identifying the data type for the attribute based on the similarity score (col. 6 lines 53-60; col. 11 lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ghosal to perform vectorization to determine similarity and identify data types to enable additional word similarity features to be determined (Toledano, abstract, col. 11 lines 25-55) and used to recommend labels in Ghosal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because it would only entail combining the natural language processing of Ghosal with the natural language processing of Toledano to generate/recommend words and labels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1, 12, and 19 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of generating and validating metadata elements for a data store, and that Office Action fails to consider the claims as a whole. The examiner disagrees. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not provide integration into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims reflect various technological improvements identified in the specification, such as analyzing and presenting recommendations to the user. Applicant alleges that this results in the improved functioning of a data store because metadata onboarding is more efficient and accurate. The examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite any limitations directed to improved functioning. Analyzing data, such as performing checks, natural language processing, generating table and attribute names are all steps that can be performed mentally. The additional elements of acquiring and receiving metadata and user input are insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of modifying the user interface to include attribute names and descriptions are merely applying the abstract idea with a computer or generic output. Even when considered as a whole, these steps do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Applicant argues that performing natural language processing on the metadata that expand names, correct words, or perform syntactic analysis, checking to determine if metadata is complete, and receiving missing data metadata elements capture the described technical solution. However, these steps may be performed mentally by evaluating and analyzing metadata. Receiving the missing data via a user interface is just applying the abstract idea on a computer. These steps do not provide an improvement.
Applicant argues that the claims provide an inventive concept because it was not conventional at the time of filing of the application to perform natural language processing on acquired metadata and to generate a first candidate attribute name based on processed metadata and readability score of a candidate attribute name. The examiner disagrees. The examiner does not assert that performing natural language processing on acquired metadata and generating a first candidate attribute name based on processed metadata and readability score of a candidate attribute name are conventional. These steps are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. An alleged improvement or inventive concept cannot be in the abstract idea alone.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156