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 is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/640,598 filed on 04/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0152278 A1, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of BALAKUMARAN et al. (JP 2023101409 A, hereinafter “Balakumaran”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method for establishing a connection, the method comprising:
initiating, by a data connection object, a first attempt to establish a first connection between an application and a first host in a data system (Chen ¶¶0043-0045).
Chan fails to explicitly teach obtaining, from a governance system, governance requirements for the first connection;
making a first determination that the first connection meets the governance requirements;
establishing, in response to the first determination, the first connection between the application and the first host; and
generating, after the establishing, a first new entry on a data connection catalog associated with the first connection.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Balakumaran teaches obtaining, from a governance system, governance requirements for the first connection (Balakumaran page 2, last two paragraphs);
making a first determination that the first connection meets the governance requirements (Balakumaran page 2, last paragraph);
establishing, in response to the first determination, the first connection between the application and the first host (Balakumaran page 2, last paragraph); and
generating, after the establishing, a first new entry on a data connection catalog associated with the first connection (Balakumaran page 3, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by incorporating the teachings of Balakumaran. The motivation would be for implementing data governance over connections in and out of data catalogs to registered data sources. This to ensure that critical data assets are formally managed across the enterprise and that this data can be trusted for decision making (Balakumaran page 2, first and second paragraphs).
As to claim 2, Chen as modified by Balakumaran also teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data connection catalog comprises a plurality of entries for a plurality of connections, wherein each entry of the plurality of entries comprises information for one connection of the plurality of connections, wherein the information comprises at least one of a list consisting of: a connection identifier of the one connection, a connection level attribute, an encryption property, and a sovereignty property (Balakumaran page 7, third paragraph).
As to claim 4, Chen as modified by Balakumaran also teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the governance requirements stored on the governance system comprise a plurality of requirements associated with at least one of a list consisting of:
an authentication system and a governance policy system (Balakumaran page 7, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Balakumaran also teaches a system, comprising:
a data connection catalog (Balakumaran page 7, third paragraph);
a governance system (Balakumaran page 7, last paragraph);
a data system, comprising a plurality of hosts (Chen ¶0041);
a client device, comprising circuitry (Chen ¶0030);
an data connection object executing on the circuitry (Chen ¶0043), programmed to perform the same method as recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenin view of BALAKUMARAN, and further in view of KROENKE DAVID et al. (BR 9608549 A, hereinafter “Kroenke David”).
As to claim 3, Chen as modified by Balakumaran teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the data connection object is generated by the application based on information included in previous entries on the data connection catalog. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kroenke David teaches the data connection object is generated by the application based on information included in previous entries on the data connection catalog (Kroenke David page 2, the entire page). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Balakumaran by incorporating the teachings of Kroenke David. The motivation would be to create object link attributes that define relationships between two or more semantic object as well as to create multivalued group attributes and multivalued, simple value attributes (Kroenke David Abstract).
Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 18-20 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.
The limitations recited in claims 5-8, 13-16, and 18-20 in combination with the other limitations recited in the context of their respective base claim(s) is allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights