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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (US 2017/0132277) in view of Yogesh Chunilal Rathod (US 2018/0176318).
Regarding Claim 1, Hsiao discloses a computer-implemented method of deploying data sourced from disparate data environments in a defined form using queries, the method comprising:
establishing a data pipeline to each of the disparate data environments ([0006], Hsiao);
creating a query, at a user interface, that defines a request for data from the disparate data environments ([0006], Hsiao);
onboarding the query to a query storage ([0008], Hsiao);
transferring the query to the data pipeline ([0008], Hsiao);
responding to the query by preparing data sourced from the disparate data environments ([0008]-[0009], Hsiao); and
delivering the response to the query to an end user application, in which the data is deployed according to a user-selected configuration ([0077], Hsiao), wherein the user-selected configuration includes an output format, structure and field mappings ([0037], “as shown in FIG. 3A and described above, information regarding the columns of the result set may be output to enable the user to select measures and dimensions for the analysis to be performed to determine aggregated monthly sales information per region,” and ([0138], “user may specify the analysis information using one or more the metadata attributes output to the user in 814. For example, the user may select one or more of columns (e.g., select the columns to be used as dimensions or measures for the analysis), specify functions (e.g., SUM, AVG) to be applied to one or more columns, define time series data, specify a type of visualization to be used for outputting the analysis result set, and the like,” Hsiao).
However, Hsiao does not expressly disclose configuring and storing a user experience and metadata related to user cases of the query using a user interface and responding to the query based on the configured user experience and metadata. Rathod discloses: configuring and storing a user experience and metadata related to user cases of the query using a user interface ([0188], and Fig. 19, “Query Archive”, “Drafted Queries,” [0328], “management of the said query considering it to be knowledge invocation activity for archiving the posted queries, providing query directory, query assistant for helping user to draft queries, scheduling, saving, and publishing the said queries”, wherein selecting queries, archiving queries, and publishing queries are examples of configuring and storing as claimed; Rathod) and responding to the query based on the configured user experience and metadata ([0188], Rathod). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsiao by incorporating configuring and storing a user experience and metadata related to user cases of the query using a user interface and responding to the query based on the configured user experience and metadata, as disclosed by Rathod, in order to provide understanding of human behavior, wants, needs, and understanding recording ([0076], Rathod). See: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 1385, 1396 (US 2007); MPEP § 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
creating an opportunity that incorporates data points from the disparate data environments ([0035], combined query, [0138], Hsiao); and
linking a query to the opportunity ([0035], combined query, [0138], Hsiao).
Regarding Claim 3, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
creating a use case for the opportunity for a scenario specific to a business application accessible by end users (Fig. 2 and 3, Hsiao).
Regarding Claim 4, Hsiao discloses a computer-implemented system for deploying data sourced from disparate data environments in a defined form using queries that are executed using computing devices on a network, the system comprising:
a Query Management Tool having a user interface, through which a query for data stored in disparate data environment is defined, the Query Management Tool further including a Query Management Integration Service configured to transmit metadata related to use cases of the query ([0006], Hsiao);
Query Storage configured to store query data coupled to the Query Management Tool via the network ([0008], Hsiao);
a Query Data Pipeline coupled via the network to the Query Management Tool and to the Query Storage, the Query Data Pipeline being configured collect data from the disparate data environments in response to commands received from the QMT based on data in query storage to execute the query and prepare data for use ([0008]-[0009], Hsiao); and
a Query Management Integration Component coupled to the Query Management Integration Service, to the Query Data Pipeline, and to one or more downstream applications, the Query Management Integration Component being configured to receive the metadata from the Query Management Information service and data prepared by the Query Data Pipeline and to generate the user experience according to the use case for the one or more downstream applications ([0077], Hsiao).
However, Hsiao does not expressly disclose a user experience and metadata are configured using the user interface. Rathod discloses: a user experience and metadata are configured using the user interface ([0188], and Fig. 19, “Query Archive”, “Drafted Queries,” [0328], “management of the said query considering it to be knowledge invocation activity for archiving the posted queries, providing query directory, query assistant for helping user to draft queries, scheduling, saving, and publishing the said queries”, wherein selecting queries, archiving queries, and publishing queries are examples of configuring and storing as claimed; Rathod). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsiao by incorporating that user experience and metadata are configured using the user interface, as disclosed by Rathod, in order to provide understanding of human behavior, wants, needs, and understanding recording ([0076], Rathod). See: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 1385, 1396 (US 2007); MPEP § 2143.
Regarding Claim 5, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented system of claim 4, further comprising:
a search platform module coupled to the Query Data Pipeline and to the one or more downstream applications, the search platform module configured to obtain data specific to the query based on metadata received from the Query Data Pipelines, and to deliver the obtained data to the one or more downstream applications ([0042]-[0043], Hsiao).
Regarding Claim 6, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented system of claim 4, wherein the user interface of the Query Management Tool enables users to create an opportunity that incorporates data points from the disparate data environments ([0035], combined query, Hsiao), and to link the query to the opportunity ([0035], combined query, Hsiao).
Regarding Claim 7, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented system of claim 6, wherein the user interface of the Query Management Tool further enables users to create a use case for the opportunity for a scenario specific to a downstream application (Fig. 2 and 3, Hsiao).
Regarding Claim 8, Hsiao/Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the end user application is one of a reporting application that enables communications using data points accessible using queries, and an enterprise application that manages client relationships and determines channels for providing services based on queries ([0012], [0126], [0324], [0326], [0328], Rathod).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the applied art fails to disclose; “configuring and storing a user experience and metadata related to use cases of the query using a user interface.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applied art does disclose: configuring and storing a user experience and metadata related to use cases of the query using a user interface ([0188], and Fig. 19, “Query Archive”, “Drafted Queries,” [0328], “management of the said query considering it to be knowledge invocation activity for archiving the posted queries, providing query directory, query assistant for helping user to draft queries, scheduling, saving, and publishing the said queries”, wherein selecting queries, archiving queries, and publishing queries are examples of configuring and storing as claimed; Rathod).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA B COLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2752. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GIOVANNA B COLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
January 15, 2026