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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carvalho et al. (US 2020/0175026 A1) hereinafter Carvalho.
Regarding claim 1, Carvalho discloses A computer-implemented method of constructing a node diagram interface for designing data pipelines from arbitrary instructions, comprising:
displaying at least one code view representing the code associated with one or more instruction (Carvalho [0030] discloses panel 206 may provide code-based view 210 as illustrated in Fig. 2B);
displaying at least one diagram view representing the code associated with one or more instruction (Carvalho [0030] discloses panel 206 may provide diagram-based view 206 of the data pipeline as illustrated in Fig. 2A);
displaying at least one visual representation of one or more pipeline connection (Carvalho [0030] discloses panel 206 may include connections between various element related to a data pipeline currently being viewed as illustrated in Fig. 2A);
programmatically extracting one or more pipeline design configuration from at least one diagram view (Carvalho [0028] discloses data hub providing an interface to configure pipelines, data sources, operations, executable instructions, and other components. Carvalho [0031] discloses configuration details 208 may be details about an element in panel 206 being examined in the diagram-based view and based on the object selected. Thus, once an object is selected in panel 206 the configuration details are extracted from the diagram-based view).
Regarding claim 2, it’s directed to a system having the same first three limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 2 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, it’s directed to a system having the same last limitation cited in claim 1. Thus claim 3 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remarks that Kubernetes orchestration innovations are not to be considered innovations in runtime pipelines, the examiner would like to point out that the claims do not claim nor require runtime pipelines. The claims broadly disclose the invention, further, the claim merely recites the “data pipelines” in the preamable and no where in the claim is it recited again. Where even the preamble does not recite “runtime pipelines”.
Regarding the remarks that the Carvalho orchestration flow require an association with an extension point in which runtime pipelines do not, the examiner would like to point out that the claims do not claim nor require runtime pipelines. Thus, Carvalho requiring an association with an extension point is still a valid reference for the broadly recited claims.
Regarding the remarks that the Carvalho does not constitute an arrangement of computer instructions in which the output generated by an instruction is used as the input accepted by the next instruction as in a runtime pipeline, the examiner would like to again point out that the claims do not claim nor require a runtime pipeline nor the specificity of the current remarks. Thus, Carvalho is still a valid reference for the broadly recited claims.
Regarding the remarks that the Carvalho’s Fig. 2A and Fig. 3 do not suggest data exiting each node is the output generated by that node as in a runtime pipeline, the examiner would like to point out that the claims do not claim nor require runtime pipelines. Thus, Carvalho is still a valid reference for the broadly recited claims.
Regarding the remarks that the Carvalho’s data generator is data such as a CSV file and not the configurations such as variable names, inputs, outputs of the present application, the examiner would like to point out that the claims do not claim nor require the specificity of configurations including variable names, inputs, and outputs. The examiner recommends explicitly claiming the intent of the invention to potentially overcome the current reference.
Similar remarks for claims 2-3 for having similar language to claim 1.
For the above reasons, the 102 rejection of claims 1-3 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references include Jennings (US 2019/0163790 A1) which discloses [0048] extracting data from a pipeline on a runtime basis.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights