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
The instant application having Application No. 18/662,539 has claims 1-28 pending filed on 05/13/2024; there are 3 independent claim and 25 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Acknowledgement Of References Cited By Applicant
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 29, 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 29, 2025 in response to PTO Office Action dated May 29, 2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
After considering the applicant’s argument for the claim 27 (dated 08/29/2025), the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained as the claim limitations meets the three-prong test (MPEP § 2181). The claims limitation(s) for the independent claim 27 “A system for delivering a dynamically identified set of related metadata of a specified quality to a target environment for metadata-driven processing of data, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising …” do not modify the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Refer MPEP § 2181 II (B) “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the applicant’s clarification and explanation especially for the in the context of the independent claim 1 (dated 08/29/2025), the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more of the claims 1-28 is maintained. The examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on pages 10-14 in regards to the independent claim 1. The applicant states that “The subject matter of claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Rather, claim 1 involves features that are necessarily rooted in computer technology and can only be performed by execution in a data processing system. In particular, claim 1 includes the features of ‘in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata,’ ‘processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment,’ and ‘determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment,’ each of which can only be performed by a data processing system and cannot be performed in the human mind. The claim 1 as a whole recites an improvement to a computer technology and thus amounts to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Amended claim 1 recites, among other things, ‘processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment,’ ‘determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment,’ and ‘in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment.’ As described in the specification, the foregoing combination of features recited in claim 1 operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ‘validate metadata prior to integration into the target system, thereby improving the quality of the promoted metadata and reducing errors within the target environment’. As a result, ‘processing is improved and computational resources are conserved because there is a reduction in an amount of processing that starts or otherwise take places that has to be aborted or stopped due erroneous data, such as a missing dependency or a missing data item’. In addition, through the above-noted features ‘the accuracy and completeness of metadata that is transferred between the source environment and the target environment is improved without disrupting ongoing development of an application,’ which ‘ensures proper development of applications across different technical environments’. For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 recites an improvement to computer technologies that is explicitly set forth in the specification. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole amounts to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea ”. However, this is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement to other technology and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Any described improvement would occur for mental/manual process (abstract idea) as well. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology.” Here, there are no additional elements to really consider – any improved aspect is an improved mental process for “processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment”, “determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment”, and “in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” which alone does not provide integration into a practical application or significantly more. The amendment to the claim 1 just adds “for being made available in a target environment” does not provide an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement to other technology and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 103 Rejection of claims 1-28
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/29/2025 with respect to the claims 1-28 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
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: component in claim 27.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method performed by a data processing system for delivering a dynamically identified set of related metadata of a specified quality to a target environment for metadata-driven processing of data, comprising; in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata, by; receiving an indication of given metadata of the source environment; accessing a schema specifying relationships among metadata of the source environment; and identifying, based on the schema, metadata of the source environment related to the given metadata; processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment.
Step 1: Statutory Category:
Yes, the claim recites a Method.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited:
The limitations of the claim recites a method performed by a data processing system for delivering a dynamically identified set of related metadata of a specified quality to a target environment for metadata-driven processing of data, comprising; in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata, by; receiving an indication of given metadata of the source environment; accessing a schema specifying relationships among metadata of the source environment; and identifying, based on the schema, metadata of the source environment related to the given metadata; processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules; and in accordance with the identified metadata having the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As per MPEP 2106,04(a)(2) III “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment” and “determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment” in the claim limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Accordingly, there are no additional elements in the claim limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims provide an Inventive Concept
The claim 1 does not have additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The independent claims 27 and 28 have similar limitations as claim 1, thus the independent claims 27 and 28 are rejected for the reasons specified supra for the independent claim 1.
As per dependent claims 2-26 depend directly or indirectly on the independent claim 1 and these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claim 2 states additional steps for the system of the claim 1 “identifying one or more items of data associated with the related set of metadata; and retrieving, from a data repository, the one or more items of data”, the claim 3 states additionally steps of the system of claim 2, “wherein the one or more quality rules comprise first quality rules, the method further comprising: processing, by the data processing system, the one or more items of data with one or more second quality rules to determine whether the one or more items of data have a specified quality; determining, by the data processing system, that the one or more items of data have the specified quality; and in accordance with the one or more items of data having the specified quality, making the one or more items of data available in the target environment”, the claim 4 states additionally steps of the system of claim 2, “wherein the one or more items of data comprise at least one of: a record format definition associated the related set of metadata, application logic associated with the related set of metadata, or properties of the related set of metadata”, the claim 5 states additional steps of the system of the claim 1, “further comprising receiving an indication of a version for the given metadata”, the claim 6 states additional steps of the system of the claim 5, “wherein identifying the related set of metadata includes identifying, based on the schema, metadata related to the version of the given metadata”, the claim 7 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “further comprising receiving an indication of a version for the related set of metadata”, the claim 8 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises modifying a repository of the target environment such that the identified metadata is available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment”, the claim 9 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises storing the identified metadata in a repository of the target environment”, the claim 10 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises making the identified metadata accessible to one or more applications of the target environment, or incorporating the identified metadata into a data catalog of the target environment”, the claim 11 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises at least one of: transferring the identified metadata to the target environment, inserting the identified metadata into a repository of the target environment, updating one or more values of metadata in the repository of the target environment based on the identified metadata, deleting metadata from the repository of the target environment based on the identified metadata, or changing logical ownership of the identified metadata within the target environment”, the claim 12 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “determining that at least a portion of the identified metadata does not have the specified quality; and causing display of information regarding a cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality”, the claim 13 states additional steps of the method of the claim 12, “responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, receiving a request to include additional metadata in the related set of metadata; and associating the additional metadata with the related set of metadata”, the claim 14 states additional steps of the method of the claim 12, “responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, receiving an indication to override; and responsive to the indication to override, making the identified metadata available in the target environment”, the claim 15 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “determining that at least a portion of the identified metadata does not have the specified quality; and in accordance with the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, aborting making the identified metadata available in the target environment”, the claim 16 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the one or more quality rules comprise at least one of a structural quality rule or a semantic quality rule, wherein the structural quality rule comprises criterion for one or more references of the identified metadata within the target environment to specify a required referential integrity, and wherein the semantic quality rule comprises criterion for attributes of the identified metadata”, the claim 17 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “accessing, from a repository of the target environment, an application; and executing the application in accordance with the identified metadata”, the claim 18 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein identifying the metadata related to the given metadata comprises querying a repository of the source environment in accordance with a related content query, wherein the related content query is configured to select the metadata related to the given metadata”, the claim 19 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the related set of metadata includes references to the given metadata and the metadata related to the given metadata”, the claim 20 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises: generating an archive file comprising the identified metadata; and transferring the archive file to the target environment”, the claim 21 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein processing the identified metadata with the one or more quality rules comprises; determining that the identified metadata would likely cause an error within the target environment by determining that at least one of: a) metadata within the target environment, b) a reference to metadata within the target environment, or c) a piece of application logic, is not found that is needed for a successful integration into the target environment of the identified metadata”, the claim 22 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the source environment is a development environment for an application and the target environment is a test environment or a production environment for the application”, the claim 23 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises; storing the identified metadata in a first state in a repository of the target environment, wherein the identified metadata is unavailable in the target environment when in the first state; receiving an indication to transition the identified metadata from the first state to a second state, wherein the metadata is available in the target environment when in the second state; and in response to the indication, transitioning the metadata to the second state”, the claim 24 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “identifying a version conflict among the metadata related to the given metadata; and causing display of information regarding the version conflict”, the claim 25 states additional steps of the method of the claim 24, “in response to the display of the information regarding the version conflict, receiving selection data specifying selection of a particular version for the metadata related to the given metadata; and including the particular version of the metadata related to the given metadata in the related set of metadata”, the claim 26 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “receiving data input into a user interface, the data specifying the source environment, the target environment, and instructions to transfer the related set of metadata from the source environment to the target environment”.
Therefore, the claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12, 16-21 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy Kenneth (US PGPUB 20180253505) in view of Calusinski et al (US PGPUB 20060247944).
As per claim 1:
Levy teaches:
“A method performed by a data processing system for delivering a dynamically identified set of related metadata of a specified quality to a target environment for metadata-driven processing of data, comprising” (Paragraph [0005], Paragraph [0025] and Paragraph [0096] (the metadata systems and methods are designed to work with identification systems that operate in the digital realm only, as well as ones that span the digital and physical realms, execute rules based on a content object's dynamic metadata and metadata also includes an instruction or set of instructions that is executed by machine or machines to perform, transmit or transfer content (target environment)))
“in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata, by” (Paragraph [0096] (the response can be tailored based on user information derived from metadata requesters so that the response is tailored to the common attributes of the class of users requesting metadata for the object and enables the system to identify and dynamically add metadata responses for a content object by))
“receiving an indication of given metadata of the source environment” (Paragraph [0127] (each time a request for metadata is received, the router logs the request and also records user identification for the request))
“accessing a schema specifying relationships among metadata of the source environment; and identifying, based on the schema, metadata of the source environment related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0046] (provide metadata responses to different mobile device application programs with corresponding content ID schema where metadata responses are identified by the ID provider of the content ID schema and extracted identifiers and the metadata routing system routes metadata responses to a requesting mobile device, supporting a variety of different ID providers and mobile device applications)).
Levy does not EXPLICITLY teach: processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment.
However, in an analogous art, Calusinski teaches:
“processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0176] and Paragraph [0220] (a novel system for forming and maintaining a multi-source multi-tenant reference data utility delivering high quality reference data, processing arriving metadata that characterizes sources of data, tenants, clients of the utility and entitlements of particular clients including, entitlements to data from particular sources, at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising: rules for checking range tolerance of source attribute values; rules for checking rate of change of source attribute values, rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values and rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements (has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment) within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository))
“determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0058] and Paragraph [0151] (the frequency with which a source-supplied attribute value coincides with the recommended value, provides an objective measure of the relative quality of different sources of information to the repository and wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target environment)))
“and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” (Paragraph [0046] (obtaining the source element in a source description; converting the source element based on the source description to at least one target information element based on a corresponding target description, wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target metadata))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Calusinski and apply them on teachings of Levy for the method “processing, by the data processing system, identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining, by the data processing system, that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment”. One would be motivated as the reference data utility provides an objective measure of the accuracy and quality of different available data sources based on its processes for comparing values for the same attribute (based on at least one rule from at least one rule set) from different sources (Calusinski, Paragraph [0179]).
As per claim 2:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Levy further teaches:
“identifying one or more items of data associated with the related set of metadata” (Paragraph [0062] (the metadata source provides metadata in response to a request from an entity that supplies the content ID for a content object)).
As per claim 3:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 2 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein the one or more quality rules comprise first quality rules, the method further comprising” (Paragraph [0041] (the at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising))
“processing, by the data processing system, the one or more items of data with one or more second quality rules to determine whether the one or more items of data have a specified quality” (Paragraph [0047] (the step of performing source-specific cleansing can comprise an action taken from a group of actions comprising: automated execution of the at least one rule from the at least one rule set containing source-specific cleansing rules))
“determining, by the data processing system, that the one or more items of data have the specified quality” (Paragraph [0041] (rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values (one or more items of data have the specified quality)))
“and in accordance with the one or more items of data having the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” (Paragraph [0041] (rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository)).
As per claim 4:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 2 above.
Levy further teaches:
“wherein the one or more items of data comprise at least one of: a record format definition associated the related set of metadata, application logic associated with the related set of metadata, or properties of the related set of metadata” (Paragraph [0105] (the router's usage data provides information about the popularity of the content object, correlation to the preferences of others who have requested metadata for the object etc., in some applications, the reader packages information about the object along with the extracted content ID, such as the object type and format and this enables the metadata response to be tailored to the object type and format that the user has the capability to render on his or her device)).
As per claim 5:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 2 above.
Levy further teaches:
“further comprising receiving an indication of a version for the given metadata” (Paragraph [0062] and Paragraph [0063] (the metadata source provides metadata in response to a request from an entity that supplies the content ID for a content object and the version identifier may be used to enable the provider of the identification technology to create different content ID sets)).
As per claim 6:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 5 above.
Levy further teaches:
“wherein identifying the related set of metadata includes identifying, based on the schema, metadata related to the version of the given metadata” (Paragraph [0201] and Table 1 (the ID Provider embedder and detector software contains the ID Provider ID, and submits it, along with an ID Version of the embedding or detection algorithm, with every request where the ID version is based on the schema (Table 1))).
As per claim 7:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Levy further teaches:
“further comprising receiving an indication of a version for the related set of metadata” (Paragraph [0063] (the reader supplies a unique provider identifier assigned to it, along with a version identifier where the version identifier may be used to enable the provider of the identification technology to create different content ID sets)).
As per claim 8:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises modifying a repository of the target environment such that the identified metadata is available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” (Paragraph [0144] and Paragraph [0394] (a repository entity consists of a set of attributes defining the entity and its metadata, a collection of item instances each containing additional information on the repository entity added into the repository from an identified source and the target description contains information describing the structure, contents and constraints on repository entity information)).
As per claim 9:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises storing the identified metadata in a repository of the target environment” (Paragraph [0058] (wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements, as they are stored in a repository (target environment)))).
As per claim 10:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises making the identified metadata accessible to one or more applications of the target environment, or incorporating the identified metadata into a data catalog of the target environment” (Paragraph [0201] (yje data element represents the normalization tables and metadata used to combine input from independent sources and to determine when information from multiple sources is describing a single referred entity and rules associated with cleansing, normalization, and validation used in the processing can also be stored in the repository (target environment) of the reference data utility)).
As per claim 11:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises at least one of” (Paragraph [0144] (a repository entity consists of a set of attributes defining the entity its metadata))
“transferring the identified metadata to the target environment” (Paragraph [0144] (a repository entity consists of entity with its metadata and a collection of item instances each containing additional information on the repository entity added into the repository (target environment)))
“inserting the identified metadata into a repository of the target environment” (Paragraph [0222] (if the arriving metadata describes a new source of data, a source profile is created (inserted) into the repository (target environment)))
“updating one or more values of metadata in the repository of the target environment based on the identified metadata” (Paragraph [0222] (if the arriving metadata is an update for a source previously known to the utility, the profile for that source is updated in the repository (target environment)))
“deleting metadata from the repository of the target environment based on the identified metadata” (Paragraph [0222] (the metadata request can also trigger the deletion in this step of a profile for a source which will no longer be used, the source profile contains control information needed to cleanse, quality enhance and transform data from that source into repository entity (target environment)))
“or changing logical ownership of the identified metadata within the target environment” (Paragraph [0223] (the metadata includes authentication tokens to determine when requests have originated with that client or its agents, authorization information identifying and specifying operational access rights for each agent of the client in the repository (target environment))).
As per claim 12:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“determining that at least a portion of the identified metadata does not have the specified quality” (Paragraph [0059] (for automated execution of at least one rule from at least one rule set containing source-specific cleansing rules, means for examination of the source element values by one skilled in subject matter relevant to at least one referred entity and means for annotation of any quality concerns))
“and causing display of information regarding a cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality” (Paragraph [0059] and Paragraph [0030] (means for annotation of any quality concerns, means for reporting back to the source (causing display of information) and iinquiries regarding quality of the source element in question)).
As per claim 16:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein the one or more quality rules comprise at least one of a structural quality rule or a semantic quality rule, wherein the structural quality rule comprises criterion for one or more references of the identified metadata within the target environment to specify a required referential integrity, and wherein the semantic quality rule comprises criterion for attributes of the identified metadata” (Paragraph [0041] (the at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising: rules for checking range tolerance of source attribute values, rules for checking rate of change of source attribute values, rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values (referential integrity), rules for checking structural consistency of source elements, rules for checking consistency of source elements with other relevant source elements, rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository as described by a target description, rules for checking compatibility of source element values with existing referred entity information, rules for identifying source elements as having come from a particular source, rules for comparing source elements in the context of a specific cross-source process, rules applicable to source datasets, rules applicable to source elements, and rules applicable to information elements)).
As per claim 17:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“accessing, from a repository of the target environment, an application” (Paragraph [0141] (the common shared infrastructure includes a multi-source, multi-tenant repository in which raw and enhanced data is stored; it includes shared input processing data cleansing and enhancement in which the source of all information is tracked; it includes on demand dataset delivery allowing entitled data to be selected, retrieved and delivered to all clients matching their delivery specifications (application)))
“and executing the application in accordance with the identified metadata” (Paragraph [0144} (a collection of information stored in the repository describing a single referred entity and a repository entity consists of a set of attributes defining the entity’s metadata)).
As per claim 18:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein identifying the metadata related to the given metadata comprises querying a repository of the source environment in accordance with a related content query, wherein the related content query is configured to select the metadata related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0133] and Paragraph [0135] (the metadata is descriptive information about an information element, for each source item in a source dataset, determining the referred entity about which that item contains information (querying a repository of the source environment in accordance with a related content query) and converting the attributes in the item to be compatible with the target description for the repository entity corresponding to that referred entity (select the metadata related to the given metadata))).
As per claim 19:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Levy further teaches:
“wherein the related set of metadata includes references to the given metadata and the metadata related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0096] (if the number of requests for metadata exceed a threshold, more metadata data including information about related content and commerce opportunities are provided as the interest level in a particular object increases over time)).
As per claim 20:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises” (Paragraph [0041] (rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements))
“generating an archive file comprising the identified metadata:” (Paragraph [0465] (requests for information retrieval and delivery are presented by requesters as a request for the production and delivery of an on demand dataset where the specification of an on demand dataset allows the requester to control (1) the information to be supplied in the dataset, (2) preferences on which information sources to use in supplying values for the selected information elements, (3) the mode of the data delivery, (4) the format of the metadata data when provided and one time delivery instance or recurring batched delivery instances (archive file)))
“and transferring the archive file to the target environment” (Paragraph [0501] (the customer supplies information governing connection and communications protocols and the authentication checks required for each delivery instance in the on demand dataset including the file or data transfer protocol used to pass the delivery dataset is specified)).
As per claim 21:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein processing the identified metadata with the one or more quality rules comprises” (Paragraph [0041] (the at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising)).
“determining that the identified metadata would likely cause an error within the target environment by determining that at least one of: a) metadata within the target environment, b) a reference to metadata within the target environment, or c) a piece of application logic” (Paragraph [0041] (rules for checking range tolerance of source attribute values; rules for checking rate of change of source attribute values, rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values, rules for checking structural consistency of source elements, rules for checking consistency of source elements with other relevant source elements and rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository as described by a target description))
“is not found that is needed for a successful integration into the target environment of the identified metadata” (Paragraph [0047] (the step of performing source-specific cleansing can comprise an action taken from a group of actions comprising, automated execution of the at least one rule from the at least one rule set containing source-specific cleansing rules, annotation of any quality concerns and reporting back to the source)).
As per claim 24:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Levy further teaches:
“identifying a version conflict among the metadata related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0036] (associating a content object with metadata uses a combination of a content identifier and a bounding identifier to enable handling of disparate sets of content identifiers for content objects with potentially conflicting content identifiers and each ID provider may also use an ID version to distinguish different versions of content ID spaces)).
As per claim 25:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 24 above.
Levy further teaches:
“in response to the display of the information regarding the version conflict, receiving selection data specifying selection of a particular version for the metadata related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0063], Paragraph [0210] and Paragraph [0211] (the interaction between a reader and a directory system to link a content object with a source of metadata where the version identifier may be used to enable the provider of the identification technology to create different content ID sets, the reader software parsed the returned URLs and displayed them to the user, if the CIDs are embedded by two different ID Provider technologies or versions, the user will see two different “more info” buttons, and depending upon the user's selection, the corresponding request is sent))
“and including the particular version of the metadata related to the given metadata in the related set of metadata” (Paragraph [0223] and Paragraph [0224] (the user selects to receive more information as with any CID and receives URLs, the Router, having access to the IDProviderID, ID Version and CID data in the resolution request message, uses this globally unique combination to lookup the correct URLs and the proper ID Version is known by the reader since it used that version of the algorithm to determine the CID)).
As per claim 26:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Levy further teaches:
“receiving data input into a user interface” (Paragraph [0102] (the registrant specifies a rule governing the conditions in which the different metadata responses are triggered and the process is facilitated by a graphical user interface accessible via a network)).
Also, Calusinski teaches:
“the data specifying the source environment, the target environment, and instructions to transfer the related set of metadata from the source environment to the target environment” (Paragraph [0046] (obtaining the source element in a source description (the related set of metadata); converting the source element based on the source description to at least one target information element based on a corresponding target description, wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements, as they are stored in a repository (transfer the related set of metadata from the source environment to the target environment))).
As per claim 27:
Levy teaches:
“A system for delivering a dynamically identified set of related metadata of a specified quality to a target environment for metadata-driven processing of data, comprising” (Paragraph [0005], Paragraph [0025] and Paragraph [0096] (the metadata systems are designed to work with identification systems that operate in the digital realm only, as well as ones that span the digital and physical realms, execute rules based on a content object's dynamic metadata and metadata also includes an instruction or set of instructions that is executed by machine or machines to perform, transmit or transfer content (target environment)))
“one or more processors” (Paragraph [0190] (a local request Databases across multiple CPUs))
“and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (Paragraph [0467] (the processes may be implemented in a programmable computer or a special purpose digital circuit and the processes may be implemented in programs executed from a system's memory))
“in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata, by” (Paragraph [0096] (the response can be tailored based on user information derived from metadata requesters so that the response is tailored to the common attributes of the class of users requesting metadata for the object and enables the system to identify and dynamically add metadata responses for a content object by))
“receiving an indication of given metadata of the source environment” (Paragraph [0127] (each time a request for metadata is received, the router logs the request and also records user identification for the request))
“accessing a schema specifying relationships among metadata of the source environment; and identifying, based on the schema, metadata of the source environment related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0046] (provide metadata responses to different mobile device application programs with corresponding content ID schema where metadata responses are identified by the ID provider of the content ID schema and extracted identifiers and the metadata routing system routes metadata responses to a requesting mobile device, supporting a variety of different ID providers and mobile device applications)).
Levy does not EXPLICITLY teach: processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment.
However, in an analogous art, Calusinski teaches:
“processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0176] and Paragraph [0220] (a novel system for forming and maintaining a multi-source multi-tenant reference data utility delivering high quality reference data, processing arriving metadata that characterizes sources of data, tenants, clients of the utility and entitlements of particular clients including, entitlements to data from particular sources, at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising: rules for checking range tolerance of source attribute values; rules for checking rate of change of source attribute values, rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values and rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements (has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment) within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository))
“determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0058] and Paragraph [0151] (the frequency with which a source-supplied attribute value coincides with the recommended value, provides an objective measure of the relative quality of different sources of information to the repository and wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target environment)))
“and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” (Paragraph [0046] (obtaining the source element in a source description; converting the source element based on the source description to at least one target information element based on a corresponding target description, wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target metadata))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Calusinski and apply them on teachings of Levy for the system “processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment”. One would be motivated as the reference data utility provides an objective measure of the accuracy and quality of different available data sources based on its processes for comparing values for the same attribute (based on at least one rule from at least one rule set) from different sources (Calusinski, Paragraph [0179]).
As per claim 28:
Levy teaches:
“A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (Paragraph [0190] and Paragraph [0467] (the processes may be implemented in a programmable computer across multiple CPUs or a special purpose digital circuit and the processes may be implemented in programs executed from a system's memory including a computer readable medium, such as an electronic, optical or magnetic storage device))
“in a source environment, dynamically identifying, by the data processing system, a related set of metadata including given metadata and metadata related to the given metadata, by” (Paragraph [0096] (the response can be tailored based on user information derived from metadata requesters so that the response is tailored to the common attributes of the class of users requesting metadata for the object and enables the system to identify and dynamically add metadata responses for a content object by))
“receiving an indication of given metadata of the source environment” (Paragraph [0127] (each time a request for metadata is received, the router logs the request and also records user identification for the request))
“accessing a schema specifying relationships among metadata of the source environment; and identifying, based on the schema, metadata of the source environment related to the given metadata” (Paragraph [0046] (provide metadata responses to different mobile device application programs with corresponding content ID schema where metadata responses are identified by the ID provider of the content ID schema and extracted identifiers and the metadata routing system routes metadata responses to a requesting mobile device, supporting a variety of different ID providers and mobile device applications)).
Levy does not EXPLICITLY teach: processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment.
However, in an analogous art, Calusinski teaches:
“processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0176] and Paragraph [0220] (a novel system for forming and maintaining a multi-source multi-tenant reference data utility delivering high quality reference data, processing arriving metadata that characterizes sources of data, tenants, clients of the utility and entitlements of particular clients including, entitlements to data from particular sources, at least one rule set can comprise at least one rule taken from a group of rules, comprising: rules for checking range tolerance of source attribute values; rules for checking rate of change of source attribute values, rules for checking consistency of source attribute values with other relevant source attribute values and rules for checking suitability of source elements for transformation into target information elements (has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment) within a multi-source multi-tenant data repository))
“determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment” (Paragraph [0058] and Paragraph [0151] (the frequency with which a source-supplied attribute value coincides with the recommended value, provides an objective measure of the relative quality of different sources of information to the repository and wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target environment)))
“and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment” (Paragraph [0046] (obtaining the source element in a source description; converting the source element based on the source description to at least one target information element based on a corresponding target description, wherein the target description is information describing structure, contents and constraints of repository information elements (target metadata))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Calusinski and apply them on teachings of Levy for the computer-readable storage medium “processing identified metadata corresponding to the related set of metadata with one or more quality rules to determine whether the identified metadata has a specified quality for being made available in a target environment; determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality for being made available in a target environment; and in accordance with determining that the identified metadata has the specified quality, making the identified metadata available for metadata-driven processing of data in the target environment”. One would be motivated as the reference data utility provides an objective measure of the accuracy and quality of different available data sources based on its processes for comparing values for the same attribute (based on at least one rule from at least one rule set) from different sources (Calusinski, Paragraph [0179]).
Claims 13-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy Kenneth (US PGPUB 20180253505) in view of Calusinski et al (US PGPUB 20060247944) and in further view of Alfaras et al (US PGPUB 20240281419).
As per claim 13:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 12 above.
Levy and Calusinski do not EXPLICITLY teach: responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality; receiving a request to include additional metadata in the related set of metadata and associating the additional metadata with the related set of metadata.
However, in an analogous art, Alfaras teaches:
“responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality” (Paragraph [0378] (a process can display metadata exception summary records (the identified metadata not having the specified quality) where the display can be through a graphical user interface))
“receiving a request to include additional metadata in the related set of metadata and associating the additional metadata with the related set of metadata” (Paragraph [0286] (the data catalog logic may involve enriching metadata with additional contextual information, such as business glossaries, data dictionaries, and data lineage diagrams, to provide users with comprehensive insights into the meaning, context, and usage of data assets, may also support user-driven annotation and curation of metadata, allowing data stewards, subject matter experts, and users to contribute metadata annotations, tags, and annotations to enhance metadata quality)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Alfaras and apply them on teachings of Levy and Calusinski for the method “responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality; receiving a request to include additional metadata in the related set of metadata and associating the additional metadata with the related set of metadata”. One would be motivated as by addressing metadata exceptions effectively, organizations can enhance the quality and usability of their data assets, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions and derive valuable insights from their data (Alfaras, Paragraph [0057]).
As per claim 14:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 12 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“receiving an indication to override” (Paragraph [0264] (business process data choreography specifications can be attached to each business document stored in the business document repository. The reference data choreography rules specify which values to select (override) from the entitlement managed reference data utility)).
Levy and Calusinski do not EXPLICITLY teach: responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality; and responsive to the indication to override, making the identified metadata available in the target environment.
However, in an analogous art, Alfaras teaches:
“responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality” (Paragraph [0378] (a process can display metadata exception summary records (the identified metadata not having the specified quality) where the display can be through a graphical user interface and (a process can display metadata exception summary records (the identified metadata not having the specified quality) where the display can be through a graphical user interface))
“and responsive to the indication to override, making the identified metadata available in the target environment” (Paragraph [0141] (WhereScape (a data automation platform) orchestrates the loading of data into target destinations, such as data warehouses, data marts, or analytical databases)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Alfaras and apply them on teachings of Levy and Calusinski for the method “responsive to the display of the information regarding the cause of the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality; and responsive to the indication to override, making the identified metadata available in the target environment”. One would be motivated as by addressing metadata exceptions effectively, organizations can enhance the quality and usability of their data assets, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions and derive valuable insights from their data (Alfaras, Paragraph [0057]).
As per claim 15:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“determining that at least a portion of the identified metadata does not have the specified quality” (Paragraph [0059] (for automated execution of at least one rule from at least one rule set containing source-specific cleansing rules, means for examination of the source element values by one skilled in subject matter relevant to at least one referred entity and means for annotation of any quality concerns)).
Levy and Calusinski do not EXPLICITLY teach: and in accordance with the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, aborting making the identified metadata available in the target environment.
However, in an analogous art, Alfaras teaches:
“and in accordance with the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, aborting making the identified metadata available in the target environment” (Paragraph [0373] and Fig. 9 (if it is determined that the metadata exception generation is occurring within a normal window, if the results do not indicate success, the process can mark the metadata monitoring status as failed and subsequently the process can send an error notification and end (aborting making the identified metadata available in the target environment))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Alfaras and apply them on teachings of Levy and Calusinski for the method “and in accordance with the at least the portion of the identified metadata not having the specified quality, aborting making the identified metadata available in the target environment”. One would be motivated as by addressing metadata exceptions effectively, organizations can enhance the quality and usability of their data assets, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions and derive valuable insights from their data (Alfaras, Paragraph [0057]).
As per claim 23:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 1 above.
Calusinski further teaches:
“wherein making the identified metadata available in the target environment comprises” (Paragraph [0144] (a repository entity (target environment) consists of a set of attributes defining the entity as its metadata))
Levy and Calusinski do not EXPLICITLY teach: storing the identified metadata in a first state in a repository of the target environment, wherein the identified metadata is unavailable in the target environment when in the first state; receiving an indication to transition the identified metadata from the first state to a second state, wherein the metadata is available in the target environment when in the second state; and in response to the indication, transitioning the metadata to the second state.
However, in an analogous art, Alfaras teaches:
“storing the identified metadata in a first state in a repository of the target environment, wherein the identified metadata is unavailable in the target environment when in the first state” (Paragraph [0048] (data is retrieved from the source systems using various methods, such as batch processing, change data capture (CDC), or real-time streaming and once extracted, the data may undergo transformations to clean, enrich, or standardize it, ensuring consistency and quality before it is loaded into the target system))
“receiving an indication to transition the identified metadata from the first state to a second state, wherein the metadata is available in the target environment when in the second state ” (Paragraph [0140] and Paragraph [0141) (managing the end-to-end lifecycle of data pipelines, including code generation, metadata management, scheduling, and orchestration, this is where WhereScape comes into play, where WhereScape is a data automation platform that complements Python by automating various aspects of the data pipeline development and management process and the WhereScape orchestrates the loading of data into target destinations, such as data warehouses, data marts, or analytical databases))
“and in response to the indication, transitioning the metadata to the second state” (Paragraph [0093] (the quality assurance in data pipelines may involve performance monitoring and optimization to ensure that data processing meets predefined service level agreements (SLAs) and performance targets (in response to the indication), organizations can enhance the efficiency and reliability of data pipelines, enabling timely and accurate delivery of data to downstream systems and applications)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Alfaras and apply them on teachings of Levy and Calusinski for the method “storing the identified metadata in a first state in a repository of the target environment, wherein the identified metadata is unavailable in the target environment when in the first state; receiving an indication to transition the identified metadata from the first state to a second state, wherein the metadata is available in the target environment when in the second state; and in response to the indication, transitioning the metadata to the second state”. One would be motivated as the quality assurance in data pipelines is useful for ensuring the integrity, reliability, and usability of data for analytics, reporting, and decision-making purposes, ultimately driving business success and innovation (Alfaras, Paragraph [0093]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy Kenneth (US PGPUB 20180253505) in view of Calusinski et al (US PGPUB 20060247944) and in further view of Heyhoe et al (US PGPUB 20090300580).
As per claim 13:
Levy and Calusinski teach the method of claim 12 above.
Levy and Calusinski do not EXPLICITLY teach: wherein the source environment is a development environment for an application and the target environment is a test environment or a production environment for the application.
However, in an analogous art, Heyhoe teaches:
“wherein the source environment is a development environment for an application and the target environment is a test environment or a production environment for the application” (Paragraph [0114] and Paragraph [0216] (the source code is developed for a specific application as part of a parallel development environment project using development system and when deploying to a production environment, the type of website entity and the type of target environment i.e. production, preproduction or testing is specified)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Heyhoe and apply them on teachings of Levy and Calusinski for the method “wherein the source environment is a development environment for an application and the target environment is a test environment or a production environment for the application”. One would be motivated as by using a branching strategy, multiple versions of the same resource like a source code file can be modified and managed in isolation of other versions of the resource and this branching strategy can be applied across components of the development process, including testing environments, staging servers, production servers, application platforms, and content management systems (Heyhoe, Paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin et al (US PGPUB 20220276920), systems and methods are for executing, by a data processing system, a workflow to process results data indicating an output of a data quality test on data records by generating, responsive to receiving the results data and metadata describing the results data, a data quality issue associated with a state and one or more processing steps of the workflow to resolve a data quality error associated with the data quality test. Operations include generating a workflow for processing results data based a state specified by a data quality issue. Generating the workflow includes: assigning, based on the results data and the state of the data quality issue, an entity responsible for resolving the data quality error; determining, based on the metadata, one or more actions for satisfying the data quality condition.
Colcord et al (US PGPUB 20220012250), a data analytics system is disclosed that is configured to perform operations comprising creating at least one data storage, creating a metadata store separate from the at least one data storage, creating a flow storage, and configuring a flow service using first received instructions. The flow service is configured to obtain a first flow from the flow storage, obtain metadata from the metadata storage, and execute the flow.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163