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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claim
2. Applicant's amendment dated 12/23/2025 responding to the Office Action 09/04/2025 provided in the rejection of claims 1-20.
3. Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 19 and 20 are in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
5. (A) Regarding Double Patenting: Double Patenting raised in previous office action have been maintained as below.
(B) Regarding art rejection: Applicants’ amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please see Rogynskyy et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0372075 A1)
Examiner Notes
6. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12032940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12032940 recite the elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/672,761.
Both claim features of the instant application 18/673,761 and US Patent No. 12032940 can be compares as follows:
Instant Application 18/672,761
Patent No. 12032940
1. A computer-implemented method for performing third-party application integration, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, third-party application data associated with a third- party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
obtaining integration information for integrating the third-party application data, the integration information includes a user-defined query;
executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects;
1. A computer-implemented method for performing third-party application integration, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with access rights for the organizational data and the third-party application data,
wherein the one or more rules determine how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified;
processing the third-party application data based on the integration information and the one or more rules; and
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on the one or more rules and the one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data and the organizational structure data indicates that a first group of employees has a certain set of permissions relative to a particular group of devices;
processing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on integration information for integrating the third-party application and the organizational structure data; and
performing one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on the third-party application data, wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object.
performing, by the one or more processors, one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more data structures includes an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, the integration information associated with the third-party application from the computing system.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, the integration information associated with the third-party application from the computing system.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information associated with the third-party application comprises one or more mappings for integration between the third-party application data and the organizational data of the organization.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information associated with the third-party application comprises one or more mappings for integration between the third-party application data and the organizational data of the organization.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information is associated with an instance of an integration application installed in association with an instance of an organizational data management application for the organization on the computing system, the integration application providing integration between the organizational data management application and the third-party application.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information is associated with an instance of an integration application installed in association with an instance of an organizational data management application for the organization on the computing system, the integration application providing integration between the organizational data management application and the third-party application.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the instance of the integration application is among one or more other integration applications installed in association with the instance of the organizational data management application for the organization, wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the instance of the integration application is among one or more other integration applications installed in association with the instance of the organizational data management application for the organization, wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, one or more rules associated with the computing system.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, one or more rules associated with the computing system.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing, by the one or more processors, the one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with access rights for the organizational data and the third-party application data; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on the one or more rules.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more rules determines how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the third-party application data comprises performing processing associated with one or more of a policy, a workflow, or a report of the organization based at least in part on the third-party application data.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the third-party application data comprises performing processing associated with one or more of a policy, a workflow, or a report of the organization based at least in part on the third-party application data.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; and providing, by the one or more processors, the generated information to each of the other third-party applications.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; and providing, by the one or more processors, the generated information to each of the other third-party applications.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system is a cloud-based organizational data management platform that maintains respective organizational data for each of a plurality of different organizations, the cloud-based organizational data management platform allowing each of the different organizations to manage their own respective organizational data independent from any other organization.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system is a cloud-based organizational data management platform that maintains respective organizational data for each of a plurality of different organizations, the cloud-based organizational data management platform allowing each of the different organizations to manage their own respective organizational data independent from any other organization.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system maintains the centralized system of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from a plurality of third-party applications that are separate from the computing system.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system maintains the centralized system of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from a plurality of third-party applications that are separate from the computing system.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information includes information for mapping one or more fields of the third-party application data to one or more custom fields in the organizational data.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing one or more of the operations comprises updating one or more fields in the organizational data that are associated with the third-party application.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing one or more of the operations comprises updating one or more fields in the organizational data that are associated with the third-party application.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the fields are user-defined fields associated with the third-party application data of the third-party application.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein one or more of the fields are user-defined fields associated with the third-party application data of the third-party application.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more custom fields is generated based on a combination of respective third-party application data from multiple different third-party applications.
19. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
analyze the third-party application data based on one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data;
process the third-party application data based on integration information for integrating the third-party application and the organizational structure data, wherein the integration information includes a user-defined query;
execute the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects; and
perform one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data, wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object.
18. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with access rights for the organizational data and the third-party application data, wherein the one or more rules determine how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified; analyze the third-party application data based on the one or more rules and the one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data and the organizational structure data indicates that a first group of employees has a certain set of permissions relative to a particular group of devices;
process the third-party application data based on integration information for integrating the third-party application and the organizational structure data; and perform one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data.
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 19 above
Claim 19 recites the same limitations as claim 18 above
Patent No. 12032940 does not teach the integration information includes a user-defined query; executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects; analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data and wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object. However, Panuganty discloses the integration information includes a user-defined query – See paragraphs [0135]; executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects – See paragraphs [0135 and 0189]; analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data – See paragraphs [0205-0207]. Wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object – See paragraphs [0093-0094] and paragraphs [0189-0192]).
Patent No. 12032940 and Panuganty are analogous art because they are the same field of technology such that analyze data structures to create to a set of rules. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Patent No. 12032940’s teaching with Panuganty teaching of analyzing one or more data structures associated with the employee objects.
Patent No. 12032940 does not teach wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data. However, Rogynskyy discloses wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data – See paragraphs [0194, 0420 and 0666].
Patent No. 12032940 and Rogynskyy are analogous art because they are the same field of technology such that analyze data structures to create to a set of rules/policies. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Patent No. 12032940’s teaching with Rogynskyy teaching of generate a mapping between the data source provider.
9. Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11435994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11435994 recite the elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/672,761.
Both claim features of the instant application 18/672,761 and US Patent No. 11435994 can be compares as follows:
Instant Application 18/672,761
Patent No. 11435994
1. A computer-implemented method for performing third-party application integration, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, third-party application data associated with a third- party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
obtaining integration information for integrating the third-party application data, the integration information includes a user-defined query;
executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects;
1. A computer-implemented method for performing third-party application integration, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as data of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from each of a plurality of third-party applications, and wherein the organization data acts as a centralized system of record for organizational management processes of the organization;
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data;
processing the third-party application data based on the integration information and the one or more rules; and
determining, by the one or more processors, whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; generating, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; providing, by the one or more processors, the generated information to each of the other third-party applications;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on one or more rules associated with the computing system and integration information for integrating the third-party application with the organizational data of the organization, wherein the one or more rules associated with the computing system are determined based on analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data and the organization structure data indicate a first group of employees have a certain set of permissions relative to a particular group of devices; processing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on the integration information associated with the third-party application and the organizational structure data;
performing one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on the third-party application data, wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object.
performing, by the one or more processors, one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data; and providing, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more data structures includes an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, the integration information associated with the third-party application from the computing system.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, the integration information associated with the third-party application from the computing system.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information associated with the third-party application comprises one or more mappings for integration between the third-party application data and the organizational data of the organization.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information associated with the third-party application comprises one or more mappings for integration between the third-party application data and the organizational data of the organization.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information is associated with an instance of an integration application installed in association with an instance of an organizational data management application for the organization on the computing system, the integration application providing integration between the organizational data management application and the third-party application.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the integration information is associated with an instance of an integration application installed in association with an instance of an organizational data management application for the organization on the computing system, the integration application providing integration between the organizational data management application and the third-party application.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the instance of the integration application is among one or more other integration applications installed in association with the instance of the organizational data management application for the organization, wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the instance of the integration application is among one or more other integration applications installed in association with the instance of the organizational data management application for the organization, wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, one or more rules associated with the computing system.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing, by the one or more processors, the one or more rules associated with the computing system.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing, by the one or more processors, the one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with access rights for the organizational data and the third-party application data; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on the one or more rules.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more rules determines how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the third-party application data comprises performing processing associated with one or more of a policy, a workflow, or a report of the organization based at least in part on the third-party application data.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the third-party application data comprises performing processing associated with one or more of a policy, a workflow, or a report of the organization based at least in part on the third-party application data.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; and providing, by the one or more processors, the generated information to each of the other third-party applications.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system maintains the centralized system of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from a plurality of third-party applications that are separate from the computing system.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system is a cloud-based organizational data management platform that maintains respective organizational data for each of a plurality of different organizations, the cloud-based organizational data management platform allowing each of the different organizations to manage their own respective organizational data independent from any other organization.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer system is a cloud-based organizational data management platform that maintains respective organizational data for each of a plurality of different organizations, the cloud-based organizational data management platform allowing each of the different organizations to manage their own respective organizational data independent from any other organization.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing one or more of the operations comprises updating one or more fields in the organizational data that are associated with the third-party application.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing one or more of the operations comprises updating one or more fields in the organizational data that are associated with the third-party application.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the fields are user-defined fields associated with the third-party application data of the third-party application.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein one or more of the fields are user-defined fields associated with the third-party application data of the third-party application.
19. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization;
analyze the third-party application data based on one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data;
process the third-party application data based on integration information for integrating the third-party application and the organizational structure data, wherein the integration information includes a user-defined query;
execute the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects; and
perform one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data, wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object.
12. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization, wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as data of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from each of a plurality of third-party applications, and wherein the organization data acts as a centralized system of record for organizational management processes of the organization;
determine whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; generate information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application; provide the generated information to each of the other third-party applications;
analyze the third-party application data based on one or more rules associated with the computing system and integration information for integrating the third-party application with the organizational data of the organization, wherein the one or more rules associated with the computing system are determined based on analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data, wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data and the organization structure data indicate a first group of employees have a certain set of permissions relative to a particular group of devices;
process the third-party application data based on the integration information associated with the third-party application and the organizational structure data;
perform one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data; and
provide information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data.
Claim 20, recites the same limitations as claim 1 above
Claim 19, recites the same limitations as claim 1 above
Patent No. 11435994 does not teach the integration information includes a user-defined query; executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects; analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data and wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object. However, Panuganty discloses the integration information includes a user-defined query – See paragraphs [0135]; executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects – See paragraphs [0135 and 0189]; analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data – See paragraphs [0205-0207]. Wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object – See paragraphs [0093-0094] and paragraphs [0189-0192]).
Patent No. 11435994 and Panuganty are analogous art because they are the same field of technology such that defining data structures according to a set of rules. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Patent No. 12032940’s teaching with Panuganty teaching of analyzing one or more data structures associated with the employee objects.
Patent No. 12032940 does not teach wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data. However, Rogynskyy discloses wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data – See paragraphs [0194, 0420 and 0666].
Patent No. 12032940 and Rogynskyy are analogous art because they are the same field of technology such that analyze data structures to create to a set of rules/policies. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Patent No. 12032940’s teaching with Rogynskyy teaching of generate a mapping between the data source provider.
Claim Objections
10. Claims 1, 10-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 recite “that” should be removed or replaced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data” in lines 13-15 of claim 1, lines 11-13 of claim 19 and lines 13-15 is neither explicitly nor implicitly described in the specification to a person skilled in the art. Specification describes the integration information associated with the third-party application can describe how changes to various forms of data (paragraph [0034]). The application policy data 313 can include one or more rules that determine how one or more applications including, for example, one or more third-party applications or organizational applications are accessed, modified, and/or controlled… the application policy data 313 can determine how a combination of one or more organizational applications (paragraph [0080]). However, specification doesn’t clearly describe the limitation “wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data”.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(A) since they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
12. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov (US Pub. No. 2022/0027425 A1 – art of record --herein after Saksonov) in view of Panuganty et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0401593 A1 – art of record -- herein after Panuganty) and in view of Rogynskyy et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0372075 A1 – herein after Rogynskyy).
Regarding claim 1.
Saksonov discloses
A computer-implemented method for performing third-party application integration (a micro-services architecture to integrate functionality of third-party applications to provide centralized participant account interaction and execution features – See paragraph [0041]), comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, third-party application data associated with a third- party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization (the employer devices 238a-n can refer to a device used by an entity or organization that is associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n of the employees of the employer. For example, Employer A can be a software company that has a thousand employees associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n – See paragraphs [0084-0085]), the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization (the participant key 416 contains a key based on multiple identifiers associated with a participant. The participant key 416 is based on at least one of an account code, an employer identifier and an employee identifier associated with the participant and the health service associated with the participant. The participant key 416 is encrypted, hashed, or any combination thereof, for example. The participant key 416 is available as a validation key for authorization through the first, second or third security policies – See paragraph [0114]) wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization (the data processing system can include a micro-services architecture to integrate functionality of third-party applications to provide centralized participant account interaction and execution features – see paragraph [0041]);
obtaining integration information for integrating the third-party application data (to integrate functionality of third-party applications to provide centralized participant account interaction and execution features – See paragraphs [0041]), [[the integration information includes a user-defined query;
executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects;
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data]];
processing the third-party application data based on the integration information and the one or more rules (The management information technology infrastructure can apply one or more rules to each type of transaction to determine an event. As the types of transactions and rules increase in number and complexity, the types and events can also increase in number and complexity, thereby consuming an increasing amount of resources of the information technology infrastructure – See paragraph [0084]); and
performing one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on the third-party application data (the data processing system can generate opportunity objects and authorize execution of those opportunity objects to effect execution of various operations at or by particular third party systems. The data processing system can generate opportunity objects based on information gathered by a crawling operation on a third party system. The data processing system can instruct a third party system to execute a particular action associated with the opportunity object to execute the opportunity. The data processing system can use credentials associated with a participant user for a third party system to crawl a secure web page associated with the participant user and to provide secure instructions associated with the participant user to authorize various opportunity executions – See paragraph [0040]), wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object (the cost encapsulator 542 can include at least one of a financial contribution amount, financial payment amount, financial credit amount, financial debit amount, or any combination thereof, for example associated with the account identifier 552. The cost encapsulator 554 is configured to generate at least one modification to a cost value, metric, or any combination thereof, for example associated with the account identifier 552 – See paragraphs [0141-0142]).
Saksonov does not disclose
the integration information includes a user-defined query;
executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects;
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the first employee object to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data, wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data.
Panuganty discloses
the integration information includes a user-defined query (enable a user to define a schedule for triggering user-defined query analyses – See paragraphs [0135]);
executing the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects (the personalized analytics system receives input that defines and/or adjusts an amount and/or type of information returned to a user for the query analysis, such as verbose narration, minimal narration, desired charts, desired graphs, disallowed charts, disallowed information, etc. Accordingly, various implementations trigger a query analysis using schedules and/or return gradient content based upon user-defined settings – See paragraphs [0135]. Curation engine module includes an entity-relationship (ER) model generation module 1204 that identifies a domain or topic of interest, and then specifies a relationship model for the domain or topic. For instance, the ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc – See paragraph [0189]);
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data, [[wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data]](Constraints identification module 1402 analyzes the canonical query to determine whether contextual information is missing from the query, examples of which are provided herein. Alternately or additionally, constraints identification module 1402 identifies new constraints to add to the query. For instance, if canonical query 1310 includes a time constraint, such as “sales over the last month”, various implementations of the constraints identification module add shorter and longer time constraints to generate additional information, such as a week time constraint, a yearly time constraint, etc. The identification of additional and/or new constraints can sometimes be based off of anecdotal data, such as timeframes most often requested from a particular user profile, competitor products most often requested by the particular user profile, etc. These additions and/or modifications are then used to generate additional information… constraints identification module 1402 identifies subject matter that is accessible and/or inaccessible to the user profile, such as through the use of access control inclusion rules and/or access control exclusion rules, that define what a particular user profile and/or workspace can and cannot have access to in the curated data, and governs the extraction of curated data accordingly, such as by modifying search query input keywords, modifying programmatic access to sections of a database, etc. – See paragraphs [0205-0207]).
Panuganty also discloses
wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object (utilizes user-defined rules, such as rules that prioritize database access, rules that prioritize what data to update more frequently relative to other data, etc. – See paragraphs [0093-0094]. The ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc. In various implementations, the ER model generation module 1204 uses a schema to describe the model, such as by using the schema to identify associations and dependencies between entities, where an entity can correspond to a physical object (e.g., a product), an event (e.g., a sale or service), a concept (e.g., a transaction or order), and so forth. In various implementations, the schema assigns attributes to data associations and/or entities. To illustrate, the schema can be used to assign an employee number attribute to an employee entity, a data attribute to a product sales entity, and so forth… the curation engine module uses ER models generated by ER model generation module 1204 to determine what attributes to identify for the data being curated and/or analyzed, and then updates the metadata with the identified attributes – See paragraphs [0189-0192]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Panuganty’s teaching into Saksonov’s invention because incorporating Panuganty’s teaching would enhance Saksonov to enable to define type of information returned to a user for the query analysis as suggested by Panuganty (paragraph [0135]).
Saksonov and Panuganty do not disclose
wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data.
Rogynskyy discloses
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data (the restriction policies can be generated automatically by the system or can be provided by the data source provider. Different restriction policies can be linked together to form a hierarchy of restriction policies, preserving the order in which they should be applied. For example, restriction policies can be set and applied at a group node level (e.g., company level), member node level (e.g., user level), account level, opportunity level, or team level (e.g., groups of users such as account teams or opportunity teams). For example, a restriction policy applied at the company level can apply to the electronic activity sent or received by each employee of the company while a restriction policy applied at the user level is only applied to the electronic activity sent or received by the user – See paragraph [0244-0246]), wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data (Linking electronic activities to record objects can also be referred to as matching or mapping the electronic activities to record objects – See paragraph [0194]. The policy engine 320 can generate the matching policy with input or feedback from the data source provider 9350 to which the matching policy is associated – See paragraphs [0220-0221]. The node graph generation system 200 can determine how performance outcomes map to income, for example in sales, and then estimate income based on metrics of electronic activities that match the performance outcome stored in an opportunity record object in a system of record – See paragraph [0420]. The record object manager can further identify one or more systems of record that maintain an object data structure indicating that a third entity “Fred Blogg” reports to the first entity “John Smith.” The record object manager can similarly maintain a field-value pair for the relationship between Fred Blogg and John Smith… the node graph generation system can maintain a hierarchy of an organization by determining, from systems of record data, that Fred Blogg reports to John Smith and John Smith reports to Abby Xu. This information can be used to confirm job titles including seniority and departments of such employees. Furthermore, this information can be used to adjust confidence scores of certain connection profiles between Fred Blogg, John Smith and Abby Xu – See paragraph [0666]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Rogynskyy’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panugnaty’s inventions because incorporating Rogynskyy’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panugnaty to enable to generate a mapping between the data source provider as suggested by Rogynskyy (paragraph [0571]).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1,
Panuganty discloses
wherein the one or more data structures includes an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data (Curation engine module includes an entity-relationship (ER) model generation module 1204 that identifies a domain or topic of interest, and then specifies a relationship model for the domain or topic. For instance, the ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc. In various implementations, the ER model generation module 1204 uses a schema to describe the model, such as by using the schema to identify associations and dependencies between entities, where an entity can correspond to a physical object (e.g., a product), an event (e.g., a sale or service), a concept (e.g., a transaction or order), and so forth. In various implementations, the schema assigns attributes to data associations and/or entities – See paragraphs [0188-0189]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Panuganty’s teaching into Saksonov’s invention because incorporating Panuganty’s teaching would enhance Saksonov to enable to use the schema to identify associations and dependencies between entities, where an entity can correspond to a physical object, an event, a concept and the schema assigns attributes to data associations and/or entities as suggested by Panuganty (paragraphs [0188-0189]).
Regarding claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Saksonov discloses
accessing, by the one or more processors, the integration information associated with the third-party application from the computing system (integrate functionality of third-party applications to provide centralized participant account interaction and execution features – See paragraph [0041]. Interact or communicate with the application tier to obtain data to provide to the client 102, computing devices, 232a-n, TPA devices 240a-n, employer devices 238a-n, funding sources 234a-n, or POS terminals 120a-n. The application tier can include the event control engine 310 and the opportunity engine 320. The application tier can interact with the data tier to obtain the transaction data – See paragraphs [0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 4, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Saksonov discloses
wherein the integration information associated with the third-party application comprises one or more mappings for integration between the third-party application data and the organizational data of the organization (the data identifies a merchant, and the DPS 120 determines a merchant category based on the identification of the merchant by, for example, using a merchant to merchant category mapping or lookup table stored in database. In some implementations, the data packets carrying the request to adjudicate the single claim against the electronic benefits account include a data structure having a first field indicating a merchant identifier, a second field indicating a total amount of expenditures, and a third field indicating the electronics benefit account – See paragraphs [0082-0085 and 0098]).
Regarding claim 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Panuganty discloses
accessing, by the one or more processors, one or more rules associated with the computing system (constraints identification module 1402 identifies subject matter that is accessible and/or inaccessible to the user profile, such as through the use of access control inclusion rules and/or access control exclusion rules, that define what a particular user profile and/or workspace can and cannot have access to in the curated data, and governs the extraction of curated data accordingly, such as by modifying search query input keywords, modifying programmatic access to sections of a database, etc. – See paragraphs [0206-0207]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Panuganty’s teaching into Saksonov’s invention because incorporating Panuganty’s teaching would enhance Saksonov to enable to provide the use of access control inclusion rules as suggested by Panuganty (paragraphs [0206-0207]).
Regarding claim 12, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Panuganty discloses
wherein processing the third-party application data comprises performing processing associated with one or more of a policy, a workflow, or a report of the organization based at least in part on the third-party application data (Curation engine module 110 acquires information about data, such as various attributes associated with the data, and generates metadata to retain and describe the acquired attributes and/or information. Any suitable type of data can be analyzed by curation engine module 110, such as user calendars, organization databases, user workspaces, podcast interactions, video interactions, user interface interactions, queries, enterprise data, enterprise applications, existing reports, user activities, user preferences, user dislikes – See paragraphs [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Panuganty’s teaching into Saksonov’s invention because incorporating Panuganty’s teaching would enhance Saksonov to enable to integrate functionality into the cloud-based services as suggested by Panuganty (paragraphs [0239]).
Regarding claim 19.
Saksonov discloses
One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain third-party application data associated with a third-party application that is separate from a computing system that comprises organizational data of an organization (the employer devices 238a-n can refer to a device used by an entity or organization that is associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n of the employees of the employer. For example, Employer A can be a software company that has a thousand employees associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n – See paragraphs [0084-0085]), the organizational data includes a plurality of employee objects associated with employees of the organization (the participant key 416 contains a key based on multiple identifiers associated with a participant. The participant key 416 is based on at least one of an account code, an employer identifier and an employee identifier associated with the participant and the health service associated with the participant. The participant key 416 is encrypted, hashed, or any combination thereof, for example. The participant key 416 is available as a validation key for authorization through the first, second or third security policies – See paragraph [0114]) wherein the computer system maintains the organizational data as a centralized system of record for the organization (the data processing system can include a micro-services architecture to integrate functionality of third-party applications to provide centralized participant account interaction and execution features – see paragraph [0041]);
analyze the third-party application data based on one or more data structures associated with the organizational data (data structures, files or otherwise categorize information into different databases based at least partially by object. The database 330 can also include one or more policies, profiles, merchant information, or historical transaction activity – See paragraph [0079]. An organization that processes insurance claims or certain aspects of employee benefit plans for a separate entity – See paragraph [0082]), wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising [[a plurality of entities]] associated with the organizational data, [[wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data]] (the object identifier 434 contains one or more characteristics associated with a pharmaceutical entity associated with the participant object 410 of the data processing system 120. The object identifier 434 contains or can include one or more blocks, links, executables, or any combination thereof, for example associated with at least one of the participant object 410 or a participant associated with the participant object 410– See paragraph [0084]);
process the third-party application data based on integration information for integrating the third-party application and the organizational structure data (an organization that processes insurance claims or certain aspects of employee benefit plans for a separate entity. A TPA can refer to organizations within the insurance industry which “administer” other services such as Underwriting or Customer Service. In some cases, a TPA can handle the claims processing for employers 238a-n that self-insures its employees 232a-n…manage its claims processing, provider networks, utilization review, or membership functions. The TPA 240a-n can handle many aspects of other employee benefit plans such as the processing of retirement plans and flexible spending accounts – See paragraphs [0081-0084]), [[wherein the integration information includes a user-defined query;
execute the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects]]; and
perform one or more operations associated with the organizational data based on processing the third-party application data (access, or otherwise communicate with one or more third-party administrator (“TPA”) devices 240a-n. A TPA can refer to an organization that processes insurance claims or certain aspects of employee benefit plans for a separate entity – See paragraph [0082]. An entity or organization that is associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n of the employees of the employer. For example, Employer A can be a software company that has a thousand employees associated with the participant computing devices 232a-n. The employees can obtain health care or other services, and pay for those services at a POS terminal 236a-n of the service provider – See paragraph [0085]), wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object (the cost encapsulator 542 can include at least one of a financial contribution amount, financial payment amount, financial credit amount, financial debit amount, or any combination thereof, for example associated with the account identifier 552. The cost encapsulator 554 is configured to generate at least one modification to a cost value, metric, or any combination thereof, for example associated with the account identifier 552 – See paragraphs [0141-0142]).
Saksonov discloses a participant associated with the participant object 410– See paragraph [0084]. Saksonov does not disclose
a plurality of entities.
wherein the integration information includes a user-defined query;
execute the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects;
wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data.
Panuganty discloses
wherein the integration information includes a user-defined query (enable a user to define a schedule for triggering user-defined query analyses – See paragraphs [0135]);
execute the user-defined query relative to the organization data to return a first employee object in the plurality of employee objects (the personalized analytics system receives input that defines and/or adjusts an amount and/or type of information returned to a user for the query analysis, such as verbose narration, minimal narration, desired charts, desired graphs, disallowed charts, disallowed information, etc. Accordingly, various implementations trigger a query analysis using schedules and/or return gradient content based upon user-defined settings – See paragraphs [0135]. Curation engine module includes an entity-relationship (ER) model generation module 1204 that identifies a domain or topic of interest, and then specifies a relationship model for the domain or topic. For instance, the ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc – See paragraph [0189]).
wherein at least one of the data structures is an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of entities associated with the organizational data (Curation engine module includes an entity-relationship (ER) model generation module 1204 that identifies a domain or topic of interest, and then specifies a relationship model for the domain or topic. For instance, the ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc. In various implementations, the ER model generation module 1204 uses a schema to describe the model, such as by using the schema to identify associations and dependencies between entities, where an entity can correspond to a physical object (e.g., a product), an event (e.g., a sale or service), a concept (e.g., a transaction or order), and so forth. In various implementations, the schema assigns attributes to data associations and/or entities – See paragraphs [0188-0189]).
Panuganty also discloses
wherein the one or more operations includes updating data associated with the first employee object (utilizes user-defined rules, such as rules that prioritize database access, rules that prioritize what data to update more frequently relative to other data, etc. – See paragraphs [0093-0094]. The ER model generation module 1204 can specify the relationships between different data types associated with a corporation, such as employee data types, employee attributes, customer data types, customer attributes, vendor data types, vendor attributes, etc. In various implementations, the ER model generation module 1204 uses a schema to describe the model, such as by using the schema to identify associations and dependencies between entities, where an entity can correspond to a physical object (e.g., a product), an event (e.g., a sale or service), a concept (e.g., a transaction or order), and so forth. In various implementations, the schema assigns attributes to data associations and/or entities. To illustrate, the schema can be used to assign an employee number attribute to an employee entity, a data attribute to a product sales entity, and so forth… the curation engine module uses ER models generated by ER model generation module 1204 to determine what attributes to identify for the data being curated and/or analyzed, and then updates the metadata with the identified attributes – See paragraphs [0189-0192]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Panuganty’s teaching into Saksonov’s invention because incorporating Panuganty’s teaching would enhance Saksonov to enable to define type of information returned to a user for the query analysis as suggested by Panuganty (paragraph [0135]).
Saksonov and Panuganty do not disclose
wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data.
Rogynskyy discloses
analyzing one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with the third-party application data (the restriction policies can be generated automatically by the system or can be provided by the data source provider. Different restriction policies can be linked together to form a hierarchy of restriction policies, preserving the order in which they should be applied. For example, restriction policies can be set and applied at a group node level (e.g., company level), member node level (e.g., user level), account level, opportunity level, or team level (e.g., groups of users such as account teams or opportunity teams). For example, a restriction policy applied at the company level can apply to the electronic activity sent or received by each employee of the company while a restriction policy applied at the user level is only applied to the electronic activity sent or received by the user – See paragraph [0244-0246]), wherein the one or more rules define how information associated with the one or more data structures of the first employee objects are mapped to the third-party application data (Linking electronic activities to record objects can also be referred to as matching or mapping the electronic activities to record objects – See paragraph [0194]. The policy engine 320 can generate the matching policy with input or feedback from the data source provider 9350 to which the matching policy is associated – See paragraphs [0220-0221]. The node graph generation system 200 can determine how performance outcomes map to income, for example in sales, and then estimate income based on metrics of electronic activities that match the performance outcome stored in an opportunity record object in a system of record – See paragraph [0420]. The record object manager can further identify one or more systems of record that maintain an object data structure indicating that a third entity “Fred Blogg” reports to the first entity “John Smith.” The record object manager can similarly maintain a field-value pair for the relationship between Fred Blogg and John Smith… the node graph generation system can maintain a hierarchy of an organization by determining, from systems of record data, that Fred Blogg reports to John Smith and John Smith reports to Abby Xu. This information can be used to confirm job titles including seniority and departments of such employees. Furthermore, this information can be used to adjust confidence scores of certain connection profiles between Fred Blogg, John Smith and Abby Xu – See paragraph [0666]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Rogynskyy’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panugnaty’s inventions because incorporating Rogynskyy’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panugnaty to enable to generate a mapping between the data source provider as suggested by Rogynskyy (paragraph [0571]).
Regarding claim 20.
A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
Regarding claim 20, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 19 above.
13. Claim(s) 5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGarr et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0351142 A1 – IDS filed on 05/23/2024 -- herein after McGarr).
Regarding claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
McGarr discloses
wherein the integration information is associated with an instance of an integration application installed in association with an instance of an organizational data management application for the organization on the computing system (the datastore 122 can be configured to store data that is accessible, downloadable, manageable, and updatable. In some examples, the datastore 122 can be integrated with the server(s) 102, as shown in FIG. 1 -- See paragraphs [0038-0040]. Individual user computing devices associated with the system 100 can have an instance or versioned instance of the application 140, which can be downloaded from an application store -- See paragraph [0075]), the integration application providing integration between the organizational data management application and the third-party application (the org interaction component 118 can generate the interaction graph based on first-party information (e.g., messages exchanged between users) and/or third-party data received from one or more third-party resources (e.g., third-party service providers, etc.). - See paragraphs [0016, 0041, 0048, 0082-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use McGarr’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating McGarr’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to download a versioned instance of the application as suggested by McGarr (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 17, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
McGarr discloses
wherein performing one or more of the operations comprises updating one or more fields in the organizational data that are associated with the third-party application ((collaborative tools frequently used, etc.), utilizing collaborative applications within the communication platform, generating a board to facilitate collaboration between the users, initiating an audio and/or video conversation, hiring additional users (e.g., hire new employees, move employees between teams, augment a team for a period of time, etc.), and the like --See paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use McGarr’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating McGarr’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to update to the organizational graph as suggested by McGarr (paragraphs [0195-0196]).
Regarding claim 18, the computer-implemented method of claim 17,
McGarr discloses
wherein one or more of the fields are user-defined fields associated with the third-party application data of the third-party application (interactions between users via communication platform -- See Fig.4. The interaction graph can represent a level of effectiveness and/or a professional contribution that the particular user adds to a team and/or an organization. In some examples, the org interaction component 118 can identify one or more users with a contribution level to a team and/or an organization that is above a threshold level — See paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use McGarr’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating McGarr’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to support the communication platform by maintaining security for limiting access to a defined group of users. In some examples, such users can be defined by common access credentials, group identifiers as suggested by McGarr (paragraphs [0061]).
14. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov and Panuganty and Roynskyy and McGarr as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0383252 A1 – IDS filed on 05/23/2024 -- herein after Arnold).
Regarding claim 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 5,
McGarr discloses
wherein the instance of the integration application is among one or more other integration applications installed in association with the instance of the organizational data management application for the organization (individual user computing devices associated with the system 100 can have an instance or versioned instance of the application 140, which can be downloaded from an application store -- See paragraph [0075]),
McGarr does not disclose
wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application.
Arnold discloses
wherein each respective one of the other integration applications provides integration between the organizational data management application and a different corresponding third-party application (Fig. 7, the third-party sources include the digital messaging source 716. Generally, the digital messaging source 716 can comprise any sort of digital messaging system. In particular, the digital messaging source 716 can include digital messaging systems that transmit digital messages from one user to another across a network. For example, the digital messaging source 716 can include an email system, an instant messaging system, a text messaging system, or other types of messaging systems -- See paragraphs [0186-0189]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Arnold’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s and McGarr’s inventions because incorporating Arnold’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy and McGarr to enable to manage and provide web-accessible content as suggested by Arnold (paragraph [0194]).
15. Claim(s) 8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marsh et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0021711 A1 – art or record -- herein after Marsh).
Regarding claim 8, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Marsh discloses
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the one or more data structures associated with the organizational data to generate one or more rules associated with access rights for the organizational data and the third-party application data (a data access control paradigm whereby access rights are granted to users through the use of policies that combine attributes together. The policies can use any type of attributes (user attributes, resource attributes, object, environment attributes etc.)… Automatic Multi-Policy Creation, Dependency Updates, and/or Policy Templates – See paragraphs [0089-0090, 0099]);
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the third-party application data based on the one or more rules (a system owner can configure the organization's ABAC polices that define detailed access permissions to control who can create, modify, transfer, or access data residing on the network. SDF can also be configured to integrate with the organization's business applications through the administrative console and/or by invoking a REST API in the code – See paragraphs [0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Marsh’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Marsh’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy’s to enable to integrate with the organization's business applications and define domain boundaries and/or cross-domain policies for data access as suggested by Marsh (paragraphs [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 9, the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Rogynskyy discloses
wherein the one or more rules determines how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified (After the synchronization, a user at the master system of record may modify linkage to link the electronic activity with a second record object – See paragraphs [0272-0273]. By generating the member node profiles and the corresponding node graph by processing electronic activities traversing through or being processed by the node graph generation system 200 and accessing information included in one or more systems of record, the node graph generation system 200 can generate the member node profiles using a statistics-driven analytics process based on the electronic activities – See paragraph [0356]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Rogynskyy’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panugnaty’s inventions because incorporating Rogynskyy’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panugnaty to process electronic activities traversing through or being processed by the node graph generation system and accessing information included in one or more systems of record as suggested by Rogynskyy (paragraph [0356]).
Marsh also discloses
wherein the one or more rules determines how the organizational data and the third-party application data is accessed and modified (define an organization's domain boundaries and/or cross-domain policies for data access – See paragraphs [0006]. Process of add or extended attributes – See paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Marsh’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Marsh’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to configure the organization's polices that define detailed access permissions to control who can create, modify, transfer, or access data as suggested by Marsh (paragraphs [0040-0041]).
Regarding claim 15, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Marsh discloses
wherein the computer system maintains the centralized system of record for the organization in view of respective third-party application data received from a plurality of third-party applications that are separate from the computing system (integrate with the organization's business applications through the administrative console and/or by invoking a REST API in the code, for example where data sharing and access across applications is required. IT owners can use a SDF administrative console to define domain boundaries and/or cross-domain policies for data access that may be necessary for networked use of application functionality. They can also manage the blockchain network while monitoring and/or analyzing audit trail data – See paragraphs [0041-0042]. Allows the user to access, view, and maintain the centralized catalog and glossary of data within the data virtualization platform for which they have access – See paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Marsh’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Marsh’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to maintain the centralized catalog and glossary of data within the data virtualization platform as suggested by Marsh (paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Marsh discloses
wherein the computer system is a cloud-based organizational data management platform that maintains respective organizational data for each of a plurality of different organizations (a security platform for sharing data, and efficient access and discovery of data across an organization and/or cross-organization – See paragraph [0038]), the cloud-based organizational data management platform allowing each of the different organizations to manage their own respective organizational data independent from any other organization (Security contexts can be specific to different environments, domains, IP addresses, geographical physical location and organizations. For example, they can be defined by sets of attributes that can be set by an organization. Such functions together can provide a secure data sharing platform that allows organizations and data owners to maintain full control of their data without the need for a centralized single-party-controlled data repository – See paragraphs [0040-0041]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Marsh’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Marsh’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to enable to access and discovery of data across an organization and/or cross-organizations as suggested by Marsh (paragraphs [0003, 0006 and 0009]).
16. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhatti et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0232402 A1 – IDS filed on 05/23/2024 --herein after Bhatti).
Regarding claim 10, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Bhatti discloses
determining, by the one or more processors, whether to obtain other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application (automatically create, delete, or modify user accounts on various subsets or all of the third-party SaaS applications in response to users being added to, removed from, or moved between, roles in an organization. In some embodiments, each role may be mapped to a plurality of account configurations for the third-party SaaS applications — see paragraphs [0069-0070] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Bhatti’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Bhatti’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskky to determine third-party SaaS application account configurations based on changes in roles of users, for instance received from the administrator computing device as suggested by Bhatti (paragraphs [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 11, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Bhatti discloses
obtaining, by the one or more processors, other third-party application data associated with a different third-party application that is separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application (Fig. 4, third-party application 234 and separate from the third-party application and separate from management system. A context may specify both an application hosted by a third party (like a remotely hosted SaaS application), and a type of data being exchanged, like records pertaining to a user account, records pertaining to a user, records pertaining to contact information, or records pertaining to various other types of hosted information. Thus, a given context of a given API request may specify both one application among a plurality of applications and a type of data exchanged with that application. In some cases, a single application may have a plurality of different contexts associated therewith, each context pertaining to a different type of operation or data. Or in some embodiments, each application may have one and only one context -- See paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Bhatti’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rogynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Bhatti’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy to specify both one application among a plurality of applications and a type of data exchanged with that application as suggested by Bhatti (paragraph [0058]).
17. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksonov and Panuganty and Rogynskyy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0383252 A1 – IDS filed on 05/23/2024 -- herein after Arnold).
Regarding claim 13, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Arnold discloses
providing, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data to one or more third-party applications that are separate from the computing system based on processing the third-party application data (a contextual hub is a digital space that includes a graphical user interface and graphical user experience to access, organize, and manage web-accessible sources associated with the contextual hub (e.g., a specialized web browsing application or an extension program that runs on a web browser can provide a contextual hub) – See paragraph [0009]. The contextual hub system can utilize the contextual model to organize content from separate third-party sources across the internet. In addition, by bringing together content from the various third-party sources, the contextual hub system can leverage additional contextual features and benefits by cross-referencing previously fragmented data in prior conventional systems. Upon determining that the information is relevant to a particular contextual hub, the contextual hub system can add the information to the contextual hub via a URL link that provides efficient and direct access to the relevant information – See paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Arnold’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rognynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Arnold’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rognynskyy to enable to organize content from separate third-party sources/applications as suggested by Arnold (paragraphs [0011]).
Regarding claim 14, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Arnold discloses
generating, by the one or more processors, information associated with the organizational data for each of a plurality of other third-party applications separate from the computing system and separate from the third-party application (intelligently organize content from separate third-party sources within one or more contextual hubs— See paragraphs [0009-0011] and Fig. 1); and
providing, by the one or more processors, the generated information to each of the other third-party applications (a third-party web source 114a, a third- party messaging source 114b, a third-party content storage source 114¢c, a third-party calendar source 114d, and a third-party source 114n (collectively “third-party sources 114”). The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of various types of data stored by the third-party sources -- See paragraph [0085] and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Arnold’s teaching into Saksonov’s and Panuganty’s and Rognynskyy’s inventions because incorporating Arnold’s teaching would enhance Saksonov and Panuganty and Rognynskyy to enable to store and manage various types of data as suggested by Arnold (paragraphs [0084-0089]).
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vijayan (US Pub. No. 2022/0261317 A1) discloses the database 465 may also include various “information management policies,” which are generally data structures or other information sources that each include a set of criteria and rules associated with performing an information management operation. The criteria may be used to determine which rules apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation – See paragraph [0047].
Periwal (US Patent No. 11,347,732 B1) discloses the ORM specification 310 may be based on a set of rules, herein referred to as ORM Grammar. The ORM Grammar represents an extensible set of rules, including syntax, for textually describing mappings between an object-oriented system and a relational system in a declarative way – See col. 8, lines 47-58.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192