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 is the initial office action based on the application filed on December 8th, 2023, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 16, and 20 are presented in independent form.
Effective Date
Effective date that has been considered for this application is October 6th, 2023.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 20 recites “A tangible computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions …”, which was not described in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6, 8, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “using MDE to model data” in line 2. The limitation should be read as -- using MDE to model the data -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 4-6 are dependent on claim 3, but not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the meta model is further configured to enable a user to specify data quality rules or constraints for at least one logical data model” in lines 1-2. The limitation should be read as -- wherein the meta model is further configured to enable a user to specify data quality rules or constraints for the at least one logical data model -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “searching for the at least one data model” in line 4. The limitation should be read as -- searching for the at least one data logical model -- for the purpose of further examination. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “specific to the physical transport mechanism” in line 10 and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- specific to [[the]] a physical transport mechanism -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “new data elements introduced in the transformation process” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- new data elements introduced in [[the]] transformation process -- for the purpose of further examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 16-19 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as reciting means-plus functions.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a set of tools”, “reverse engineering tool” and “data quality processor” recited in claims 16-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 7-13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 16-19 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claim 20 is directed to tangible computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 20: recite the limitations of “
receiving data at an MDE ecosystem;
modelling, by at least one processor, the data to create at least one logical data model based on a meta model stored in a data catalog;
storing, by the at least one processor, the at least one logical data model in the data catalog;
generating, by the at least one processor, a data in motion (DiM) library based on the at least one logical data model;
creating, by the at least one processor, an original channel in the data catalog and registering the at least one logical data model as a data contract on the original channel;
receiving a transformation data flow into the data catalog in the MDE ecosystem, wherein a transformation process of the transformation data flow is performed outside of the MDE ecosystem; and
using a reverse engineering tool to generate a new channel in the data catalog from the transformation data flow”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), (d), and (f), as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “model-driven engineering ecosystem,” “processor,” “reverse engineer tool,” “transformation process” “transformation data flow ,” “tangible computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions,” “computing device,” “robust data pipelines,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components. Further, steps (c), (e) and (g) are functions merely applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 20: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites additional element recitations of “automatically computing: new data elements introduced in the transformation process, excluding data elements of the original channel registered in the data catalog; and determining whether the new data elements are already available through one of a plurality of registered sources in the data catalog” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional element recitations of “using MDE to model data and transfer the data via the original channel registered in the data catalog” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional element recitations of “executing a model authoring and validation process” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional element recitations of “enable a user to specify data quality rules or constraints for at least one logical data model” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional element recitations of “executing a model registration and versioning process” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites additional element recitations of “executing a code generation process” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, it recites additional element recitations of “the DiM library is configured as class libraries in a plurality of programming languages based on the at least one logical data model” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional element recitations of “executing a channel and contract creation process” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 12 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it recites additional element recitations of “executing, by the at least one processor, a data validation, publishing and consumption process” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 13 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16: recites the limitations of “
a transport layer configured as a publish-subscribe message system;
”
Step 2A Prong 1:
(a) and (d) can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements - “model-driven engineering ecosystem,” “processor,” “reverse engineer tool,” “transformation process” “transformation data flow ,” “tangible computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions,” “computing device,” “robust data pipelines,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and (b), (c) and (e) are functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 16 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 16: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17, it recites additional element recitations of “generate the new channel in the data catalog further comprises automatically computing: new data elements introduced in the transformation process, excluding data elements of the original channel registered in the data catalog; and determining whether the new data elements are already available through one of a plurality of registered sources in the data catalog” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 17 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recites a “tangible computer-readable medium” and the specification fails to provide antecedent bases for this limitation (See the objection to the specification above). A broad interpretation can be applied to the limitation of a “tangible computer-readable medium”, which might be claimed something that cover signals, waves and other forms of transmission media that carry instructions. Therefore, the limitation “tangible computer-readable medium” is not limited to physical articles or objects which constitute a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101 and enable any functionality of the instructions carried thereby to act as a computer component and realize their functionality. As such, the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 14-15, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Perrin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0042299) discloses a model transformation unit adapted to transform a first source model in a source domain into a target model in a target domain, the first source model comprising a tree of source elements and the target model comprising a tree of target elements representing a project to be implemented in computer code, the model transformation unit comprising at least one memory adapted to store the first source model, a source meta-model representing the source domain, a target meta-model representing the target domain, and a transformation model indicating rules for transforming between the source meta-model and the target meta-model; and a transformation engine adapted to determine, based on the transformation model, a parent element of each target element of the target model to be generated and to construct the target model by generating, for each source element in the source model to be transformed, a target element based on the transformation model, and by positioning each target element in the tree of target elements below its parent element.
Amodio et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0151433) discloses reverse engineering mockup system automatically captures the window definitions of a running user interface application and generates an editable user interface mockup. This approach has various benefits, which include simplicity and speed of creating a mockup. The one or more embodiments can also record and reverse engineer the flow between multiple screens of the running user interface application. Further, based on the flow, links between the screens can be generated to represent navigation and interactivity for a given scenario. Thus, mockups for existing user interfaces do not need to be recreated when designing a new feature request, according to an aspect. To facilitate capture of the window definitions, accessibility application programming interfaces (APIs) can be utilized, in accordance with some aspects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 February 12th, 2026