DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
101 abstract idea has been obviated due to current amendments to the claims.
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 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 of this title, 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, 6, 7, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Morsi et al. (US 9,396,037) in view of Hirt et al. (US 10,261,767) further vin view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2023/0044288)
1. Morsi teaches, A computer implemented method, comprising:
determining one or more second data transformation functions using a mapping configuration file that indicates the one or more second data transformation functions respectively corresponding to the one or more first data transformation functions, wherein the one or more second data transformation functions correspond to a second data consolidation tool (Col 2: lines 51-58 and Fig 3: 302 - 308 - teaches the data pipeline configuration manifest includes an object-oriented metadata model… processed to generate data flow logic packages of the data pipeline system and further manifest compiler extracts tokens and semantics then “generates a mapping… metadata reflects a physical and/or logical mapping of the pipeline”).
Morsi does not explicitly teach,
receiving one or more first data transformation functions defined for a first data consolidation tool;
migrating, based on the mapping configuration file, the one or more first data transformation functions defined for the first data consolidation tool to the one or more second data transformation functions to be executed using the second data consolidation tool without re-creating the one or more second data transformation functions in the second data consolidation tool; and
in response to the migrating, wherein, in the executing, the one or more second data transformation functions use an output of executing the one or more first data transformation functions as an input.
However, Hirt teaches,
receiving one or more first data transformation functions defined for a first data consolidation tool (Col 6: lines 6-21 – teaches method include receiving a request to convert a first data integration job of a first framework … the job comprises a plurality of components); and
migrating, based on the mapping configuration file, the one or more first data transformation functions defined for the first data consolidation tool to the one or more second data transformation functions to be executed using the second data consolidation tool (Fig 4: 405, 410, 415, 420, 430; and Claim 1 – teaches the method includes converting a first data integration job of a first framework into a second data integration job of a second framework teaches explicitly conversion/migration between tools using mapping information, Col 1: lines 30-34 – teaches that the input data is taken from homogenous or heterogeneous sources, formats the data for subsequent analysis (i.e. execution of the unified view of the data), Hirt); and
in response to the migrating, executing the one or more second data transformation functions using the second data consolidation tool (Fig 4: 410, 415, 430 and 445 – teaches in response to conversion to the second framework (i.e. migration), the system stores the new data integration job is created and stored, Background Col 1: lines 30-34 – teaches execution of the stored data at during subsequent analysis, Hirt), wherein, in the executing, the one or more second data transformation functions use an output of executing the one or more first data transformation functions as an input (Background, Col 23-34 – teaches data integration workflows (ETL jobs) comprises executable tasks that take input data and transform the data to produce output for subsequent analysis. Because conversion produces a second-framework ETL job that preserves the data integration workflow, execution of the second-framework job necessarily involves second data transformation functions consuming output data produced by execution of upstream transformation tasks, Hirt)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Morsi’s invention to be combined with Hirt’s invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor of migrating data integration workflows across heterogenous engines.
The combination of Morsi and Hirt do not explicitly teach or suggest,
…without re-creating the one or more second data transformation functions in the second data consolidation tool.
However, Gopalakrishnan teaches,
…without re-creating the one or more second data transformation functions in the second data consolidation tool (Paragraph 35 – teaches The target transformation is based on the target transformation function (106) which is invoked to copy or insert record marked as “new” or “modified”. Because the same predefined transformation function is reused and selectively re-executed rather than regenerated, Gopalakrishnan teaches executing second data transformation functions without re-creating those functions).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the migration techniques of Hirt with the configuration-based determination and execution of Morsi and the predefined target transformation function reuse of Gopalakrishnan, because they are all in the same field of endeavor of migrate, execute and manage data transformation across different data consolidation environments thereby addresses complementary aspect of automated data integration and migration. The combination merely applies known techniques to achieve predictable results and does not require undue experimentation.
2. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan teach, The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining further comprises:
traversing one or more abstract syntax trees respectively corresponding to the one or more data transformation functions, wherein the mapping configuration file indicates a first function in the first data consolidation tool corresponding to a second function in the second data consolidation tool based on the corresponding abstract syntax tree of the first function (Col 8: lines 42-60 - teaches parser/manifest module generates abstract syntax trees from code objects, performs semantic analysis and derives metadata used to map each task to a target-system task. AST nodes are the basis for the conversion look up tables, Morsi).
3. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan teach, The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining further comprises:
preserving metadata corresponding to the one or more first data transformation functions in a configuration file that includes the one or more second data transformation functions (Fig 2, Col 11: lines 7-25– teaches the pipeline configuration manifest storing named metadata fields such as AppVersion 206 and Client Version, Fig 4 block update version attributes for all configuration objects instructs that during recompilation after conversion – version attributes and other metadata are updated to reflect in the current deployment, Morsi).
4. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan teach, The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining further comprises:
preserving a sequence of functions of the one or more first data transformation functions defined for the first data consolidation tool in a configuration file that includes the one or more second data transformation functions (Fig 5 - teaches the converter recreates precedence constraints and data-flow ordering of the original job in the target framework, ensuring runtime execution order remains unchanged; Fig 5 teaches converted job 534 retains the same control-flow 2, Hirt).
6. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan teach, The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least one first data transformation function does not have a corresponding second data transformation function indicated in the mapping configuration file; and selecting a replacement data transformation function for the second data consolidation tool (Col 13: lines 47-57, Fig 3: 304 - teaches physical mapping framework, Fig 4 – teaches validation module for testing and rolling back changes if validation fails, Col 14: lines 30-56, Morsi).
7. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan teach, The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respectively corresponding data transformation function defined for the second data consolidation tool is comprised of two or more individual functions that perform the data transformation of an individual data transformation function defined in the first data consolidation tool ( Col 11: last paragraph – Col 12 -first paragraph – teaches compiler can take a SSIS task and break it into multiple tasks and data flow blocks, Morsi).
Claims 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are similar to claim 1-3, and 6-7 hence rejected similarly.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsi (US 9,396,037) in view of Hirt et al. (US 10,261,767) and Gopalakrishnan (US 2023/0044288) further in view of Dingman et al. (US 9,430,114)
All the limitations of claim 1 are taught above.
5. The combination of Morsi, Hirt and Gopalakrishnan do not explicitly teach,
generating visual information that is translated from a first format associated with the first data consolidation tool to visual information compatible with being displayed on the second data consolidation tool when the one or more second data transformation functions are executed in the second data consolidation tool.
However, Dingman teaches,
generating visual information that is translated from a first format associated with the first data consolidation tool to visual information compatible with being displayed on the second data consolidation tool when the one or more second data transformation functions are executed in the second data consolidation tool (Fig 2 - mapping canvas renders a graphical view of source objects, target object and mapping paths derived from conversion metadata and is displayed in the target environment).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Morsi’s invention to be combined with Dingman’s invention because all the references address automated data integration, ETL conversion and presentation, they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed method that converts the data-transformation functions between consolidation tools, therefore allowing for an area to seek solutions to ETL migration problems.
Claims 12 and 18 are similar to claim 5 hence rejected similarly.
Conclusion
Swamy et al. (US 2020/0167323) – teaches cloud migration engine maps on prem ETL steps to Glue/PySpark equivalents and Job executed in clod ETL (Abstract).
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 AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159