DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed June 5, 2026. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended. Claims 5, 6, and 11-33 are canceled. Claims 46-47 have been added. Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 34-47 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 34-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 recite: identifying at least one new data record from the source data; generating at least one record hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one record hash key corresponds to each of the at least one new data record; generating at least one business hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one business hash key corresponds to a predetermined use associated with each of the at least one new data record; generating a base table, the base table comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one new data record; generating a hash table, the hash table being distinct from the base table and comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key, wherein the hash table defines an association between the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key; identifying the at least one business hash key corresponding to the predetermined use; and determining, from the hash table, the at least one record hash key associated with the at least one business hash key. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) identify a new data record, generate record and business hash keys, generate a base table and a hash table, identify a business hash key, and determine the record hash key associated with the business hash key. Further, generating hash keys may be considered math concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “receiving source data from at least one source database; importing the source data into a temporary database; transmitting the source data from the temporary database to a data warehouse comprising stored data, the data warehouse operated by the at least one server; storing, with the stored data in the data warehouse, at least one new data record from the source data; receiving a query from a user for the at least one new data record from a data access platform associated with the data warehouse; retrieving the at least one new data record from the base table using the at least one record hash key; and providing, to the data access platform, the at least one new data record to the user via a user interface” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the recitation of “at least one processor of at least one server” configured to perform recited tasks amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving source data…; transmitting the source data…; receiving a query…; and providing, to the data access platform, the at least one new record” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Further, providing the at least one new data record to the user via a user interface amounts to presenting offers. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitations of “importing the source data…; storing…; retrieving the at least one new data record…” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to storing and retrieving information in memory and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, the recitation of at least one processor of at least one server to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recites the additional element “wherein the at least one source database is a third- party database”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this additional element merely describes the received data. As stated above, receiving source data from at least one source database is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of “receiving source data from at least one source database” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 3 recites generating validated source data by validating the source data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) validate source data to generate validated source data. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of source data being at the temporary database or the data warehouse amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 4 recites the additional element “wherein the temporary database and the data warehouse are operated by the same server.” The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element the temporary database and the data warehouse are operated by the same server amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 7 recites “generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of each of the at least one business hash key.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a hub table having at least one business hash key. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 8 recites “generating at least one point-in-time table, the at least one point-in-time table comprising a recorded time of the at least one new data record or the at least one hub table.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a point-in-time table having a recorded time. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 9 recites the additional element “wherein a first record of the at least one new data record and a second record of the query are stored in an audit database.” The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of storing a first record of the at least one new data record and a second record of the query in an audit database is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of “wherein a first record of the at least one new data record and a second record of the query are stored in an audit database” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 34 recites “updating at least one hub table with a new occurrence of each of the at least one business hash key.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) update a hub table with a new occurrence of a business hash key. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 35 recites “generating a link table from two or more of the hub tables.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a link table from two or more hub table. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “the link table configured to store associations between two or more of the business hash keys” is mere data gathering/storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of “the link table configured to store associations between two or more of the business hash keys” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 36 recites “wherein the at least one point-in-time table records a change event for the at least one new data record.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a point-in-time table that records a change event. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 37 recites “wherein the at least one point-in-time table records an incident of a user access of the at least one new data record.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a point-in-time table that records an incident of a user access of the at least one new data record. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 38 recites “wherein the at least one point-in-time table uses star-based joins for a plurality of the hash tables or a plurality of the hub tables.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a point-in-time table that uses star-based joins for a plurality of the hash tables or a plurality of the hub table. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 39 recites wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key occurs before storing the source data. As stated above, generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key is a mental process that can be performed at any time. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because storing source data is mere data gathering/storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “storing the source data” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 40 recites wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key occurs after storing the source data. As stated above, generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key is a mental process that can be performed at any time. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because storing source data is mere data gathering/storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “storing the source data” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 41 recites wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key includes updating a preexisting hash table. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) update a preexisting hash table. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 42 recites wherein generating the at least one hash table includes inserting a time point in which data was collected. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) inserting a time point in which data was collected into a generated hash table. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 43 recites the additional element wherein providing the at least one new data record includes displaying the at least one hash table or the at least one base table in a flattened, fact, or dimension view on the user interface. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because providing the new data record by displaying is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “displaying” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to presenting offers and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Further, the use of a user interface for display represents applying the abstract idea with a computer. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 44 recites “detecting corrupted or invalid data source data; and generating validated re-acquired source data by validating the re-acquired source data.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) detect corrupted or invalid source data and validate the re-acquired data to generate validated re-acquired source data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “automatically requesting re-acquisition of the source data from the source database” and source data “at the temporary database or the data warehouse” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 45 recites the additional element “wherein receiving a query from the data access platform initiates the receipt of the source data from the source database.” The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element “wherein receiving a query from the data access platform initiates the receipt of the source data from the source database” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein receiving a query from the data access platform initiates the receipt of the source data from the source database” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to receiving and transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 46 recites “wherein the hash table comprises a plurality of record hash keys of the at least one record hash key and one business hash key of the at least one business hash key.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a hash table comprising a plurality of record hash keys of the at least one record hash key and one business hash key of the at least one business hash key. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 47 recites “wherein the hash table comprises only the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with aid of pen and paper) generate a hash table comprising only the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 40-43, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay et al. (US 2017/0308572 A1) (‘Finlay’) in view of Brown et al. (US 20190303462 A1) (‘Brown’), and further in view of Hoyle et al. (US 2018/0253474 A1) (‘Hoyle’).
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Finlay teaches a method and a system for managing a technology analytics environment, comprising at least one processor (paragraphs 3 and 69) of at least one server configured to perform the method comprising:
receiving source data from at least one source database (paragraphs 21 and 24);
importing the source data into a temporary database (staging database) (paragraphs 24);
transmitting the source data from the temporary database to a data warehouse comprising stored data (paragraph 25), the data warehouse operated by the at least one server (paragraphs 79-80);
storing, with the stored data in the data warehouse, at least one new data record in the source data (new/received source data is stored in data warehouse) (paragraphs 24-25);
generating a base table (i.e. main or base table), the base table comprising the at least one new data record (paragraphs 14 and 24-26);
generating a hash table, the hash table being distinct from the base table (synopsis table storing a bloom filter column having a set of binary bits (i.e., “0” and “1”) set by applying a hash function to all the base table column values in a block ) (paragraph 14);
receiving a query from a user for the at least one new data record from a data access platform associated with the data warehouse (receiving query against table in data warehouse from application/user) (paragraphs 27-28);
retrieving the at least one new data record from the base table using at least one record key (paragraphs 28-30 and 33); and
providing, to the data access platform, the at least one new data record to the user via a user interface (paragraphs 22 and 33).
Finlay does not explicitly teach identifying at least one new data record from the source data; generating at least one record hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one record hash key corresponds to each of the at least one new data record; generating at least one business hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one business hash key corresponds to a predetermined use associated with each of the at least one new data record; the base table comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one new data record; the hash table comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key; identifying the at least one business hash key corresponding to the predetermined use.
Brown teaches identifying at least one new data record from the source data (paragraphs 12, 60 and 72);
generating at least one record hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one record hash key corresponds to each of the at least one new data record (hash of source primary key or stage table primary key hash) (paragraphs 68-69);
generating at least one business hash key for the at least one new data record, wherein each of the at least one business hash key corresponds to a predetermined use associated with each of the at least one new data record (hash of business key included in record) (Brown, paragraph 70);
generating a base table (source table), the base table comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one new data record (source primary key) (paragraphs 62 and 69); and
generating a hash table, the hash table being distinct from the base table and comprising the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key (staging table with standardized plumbing fields, which include hash keys) (Brown, paragraphs 50, 66, 68-71);
identifying the at least one business hash key corresponding to the predetermined use (paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Finlay to utilize hashing methods as taught by Brown to enable a higher degree of uniqueness, faster data retrieval, speed up the loading process, and ensure that the data warehouse can span across multiple environments. Further, modification would only entail swapping or incorporating hash values with data record values to improve data processing in data warehouses environments.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, although Finlay in view of Brown teaches a hash table comprising at least one record hash key and at least one business hash key, Finlay in view of Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the table defines an association between the at least one record key and the at least one business key; determining, from the table, the at least one record key associated with the at least one business key; or retrieving the at least one new data record from the base table using the (associated) at least one record key.
Hoyle teaches: wherein the table defines an association between the at least one record key and the at least one business key (paragraph 38);
identifying the at least one business key corresponding to the predetermined use (paragraph 38);
determining, from the table, the at least one record key associated with the at least one business key; and retrieving the at least one new data record from the base table using the (associated) at least one record key (paragraphs 38, 44, and 64).
It would have been obvious to a person having would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Finaly in view of Brown to associate record key and business keys for data retrieval as taught by Hoyle to enable database systems to provide “as-is” and “as-was” (and “as-would-have-been”) reporting functionality while significantly reducing the processing, storage, and data redundancy requirements. Further the hybrid table having record and business keys provides the flexibility to efficiently query the database for any combination of current and/or historical facts and attributes without the need to generate new fact tables for any such query, while also avoiding the need for use of redundant data tables and the concomitant resource expenditures (Hoyle, paragraph 44).
With respect to claim 2, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein the at least one source database is a third-party database (i.e. external sources of data) (Finlay, Fig. 1, paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 40, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key occurs after storing the source data (Brown, paragraphs 66-67, 105-107 and 113).
With respect to claim 41, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key includes updating a preexisting hash table (Brown, paragraphs 15, 95, 102, and 113).
With respect to claim 42, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein generating the at least one hash table includes inserting a time point in which data was collected (Brown, paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 43, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein providing the at least one new data record includes displaying the at least one hash table or the at least one base table in a flattened, fact, or dimension view on the user interface (Finlay, paragraphs 25 and 33; Brown, paragraphs 79, 96, and 120).
With respect to claim 45, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein receiving a query from the data access platform initiates the receipt of the source data from the source database (event based retrieval/ingestion of records) (Finlay, paragraphs 24-25; Brown, paragraphs 90, 94, 96, and 120).
With respect to claim 46, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein the hash table comprises a plurality of record hash keys of the at least one record hash key and one business hash key of the at least one business hash key (Hoyle, paragraph 64).
With respect to claim 47, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches wherein the hash table comprises only the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key (Brown, paragraphs 66, 68, and 70).
Claims 3 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay et al. (US 2017/0308572 A1) (‘Finlay’) in view of Brown et al. (US 20190303462 A1) (‘Brown’) and Hoyle et al. (US 2018/0253474 A1) (‘Hoyle’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozier (US 2017/0132525 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches source data.
Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle does not explicitly teach generating validated source data by validating the source data at the temporary database or the data warehouse.
Rozier teaches generating validated source data by validating the source data at the temporary database or the data warehouse (paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the source data of Finlay to be validated as taught by Rozier to enable improved data quality and faster integrity checks in data warehouses by using machine learning techniques to perform data integrity checks in a data warehouse (DWH) feed (Rozier, abstract). Further, using the machine learning techniques to validate data would lessen high labor cost of human checks; low coverage of human checks; high operational impact resulting from this low coverage; and high labor cost of containment measures (Rozier, paragraphs 7-8).
With respect to claim 44, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Rozier teaches detecting corrupted or invalid data source data (Rozier, paragraph 24);
automatically requesting re-acquisition of the source data from the source database; and generating validated re-acquired source data by validating the re-acquired source data at the temporary database or the data warehouse (Rozier, paragraphs 24, 39, and 41).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay et al. (US 2017/0308572 A1) (‘Finlay’) in view of Brown et al. (US 20190303462 A1) (‘Brown’) and Hoyle et al. (US 2018/0253474 A1) (‘Hoyle’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tola (US 2018/0324064 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches the temporary database and data warehouse.
Finlay in view of Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the temporary database and the data warehouse are operated by the same server.
Tola teaches wherein the temporary database and the data warehouse are operated by the same server (paragraphs 97-98).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the temporary database and the data warehouse to be stored on the same server as taught by Tola because it is obvious that in Finlay the temporary database and the data warehouse may operate on the same or separate servers. Although Finlay doesn’t specify where the temporary database and the data warehouse are operated, the modification to have them operated by the same server would only entail changing the server of one of the temporary database and the data warehouse to achieve the same analytic environment and processing.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay et al. (US 2017/0308572 A1) (‘Finlay’) in view of Brown et al. (US 20190303462 A1) (‘Brown’) and Hoyle et al. (US 2018/0253474 A1) (‘Hoyle’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Searle et al. (US 2021/0311958 A1) (‘Searle’).
With respect to claim 7, although Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches data vault hubs (Brown, paragraph 52) and the at least one business hash key (i.e. hash of business key) (Brown, paragraph 70), Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle fails to explicitly teach generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of each of the at least one business key.
Searle teaches generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of each of the at least one business key (paragraphs 6, 26, and 83).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Finlay to generate hub tables storing new occurrence of keys as taught by Searle because it is well-known that data vault hubs, such as is the Data Vault 2.0 model, store hub tables comprising business keys (Searle, paragraph 6). Further, the modification would only entail to enable swapping the data vault hubs of Brown, which obviously by definition comprise hub tables with data keys, with the data value hub tables (that explicitly comprise hub tables with data keys) of Searle to yield predictable results of data vault design of data warehouse to model the business data irrespective of changes in the business environment (Searle, paragraph 7).
With respect to claim 8, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Searle teaches generating at least one point-in-time table (i.e. satellite table), the at least one point-in-time table comprising a recorded time of the at least one new data record or the at least one hub table (Searle, paragraphs 6 and 25).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay et al. (US 2017/0308572 A1) (‘Finlay’) in view of Brown et al. (US 20190303462 A1) (‘Brown’) and Hoyle et al. (US 2018/0253474 A1) (‘Hoyle’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US 20210406386 A1) (‘Ortiz’).
With respect to claim 9, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches the at least one new data record and the query.
Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle does not explicitly teach wherein a first record of the at least one new data record and a second record of the query are stored in an audit database.
Ortiz teaches wherein a first record of the at least one new data record and a second record of the query are stored in an audit database (paragraphs 110, 217, 231, and 336).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Finlay to include an audit database with records of updated stored data and the query as taught by Ortiz to enable tracking of data usage and interconnections to establish an audit trail for downstream analysis in the event of a breach and to track statistics on data sets (Ortiz, paragraphs 110 and 231).
Claims 7, 8, 34-36, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scalefree Blog “Hash Keys in Data Vault” (hereinafter “Scalefree”).
With respect to claim 7, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of attributes such as business keys (domain table similar to data vault hub that identifies business keys) (paragraphs 52 and 54).
Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle fails to explicitly teach generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of each of the at least one business hash key.
Scalefree teaches generating at least one hub table comprising a new occurrence of each of the at least one business hash key (pages 2-3 “Therefore, instead of looking up the sequence of a business key in a hub before describing the business key in the satellite, we can just calculate the hash key of the business key”; also “Hashing instead of sequencing means that we can load in complete 100% parallel operations to all hubs, all links, all satellites.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Finlay to generate hub tables storing new occurrence of hash keys as taught by Scalefree to speed up loading process and ensure that data warehouses can span multiple environments (Scalefree page 1). Further using hash keys in data warehouses improves parallel processing, data load performance, consistency, and auditability (Scalefree, page 5).
With respect to claim 8, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches generating at least one point-in-time table (i.e. satellite table), the at least one point-in-time table comprising a recorded time of the at least one new data record or the at least one hub table (Scalefree, pages 1- 2).
With respect to claim 34, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches updating at least one hub table a new occurrence of each of the at least one business hash key (domain table similar to data vault hub that identifies business keys) (Brown, paragraphs 52, 54 and 70; Scalefree, pages 2-3).
With respect to claim 35, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches generating a link table (data vault links) from two or more of the hub tables, the link table configured to store associations (transactions between domains) between two or more of the business hash keys (Brown, paragraphs 52, 54, and 70; Scalefree, pages 2-3).
With respect to claim 36, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches wherein the at least one point-in-time table records a change event for the at least one new data record (Brown, paragraphs 48, 50, 58 and 68; Scalefree – satellite tables in data vault by definition store temporal attributes such as descriptive attributes and their history associated with a hub or link).
With respect to claim 38, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches wherein the at least one point-in-time table uses star- based joins for a plurality of the hash tables or a plurality of the hub tables (Finlay, paragraph 25 - star-based joins; Brown, paragraphs 50, 66, 68-71 – plurality of hash tables; Scalefree, pages 2-3 – hub tables).
With respect to claim 39, Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle teaches generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key (Brown, paragraphs 66-67, 105-107 and 113).
Finlay in view of Brown and Hoyle does not explicitly teach wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key occurs before storing the source data.
Scalefree teaches wherein generating the at least one record hash key and the at least one business hash key occurs before storing the source data (Scalefree, page 4 - "The point where to hash the values should be on the way into the staging area because at this point there is time to check for "hash collisions", and handle hashing issues before continuing with the data in the Data Vault).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Finlay to generate hash keys before storing as taught by Scalefree to handle hashing issues before continuing with the data in the Data Vault (page 4) and speed up loading process and ensure that data warehouses can span multiple environments (Scalefree page 1). Further using hash keys in data warehouses improves parallel processing, data load performance, consistency, and auditability (Scalefree, page 5).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US 20210406386 A1) (‘Ortiz’).
With respect to claim 37, Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches the at least one point-in-time table.
Finlay in view of Brown, Hoyle and Scalefree teaches does not explicitly teach a table that records an incident of a user access of the at least one new data record.
Ortiz teaches a table that records an incident of a user access of the at least one new data record (paragraphs 110, 231, and 336).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Finlay to include a point in time table that records an incident of a user access of the at least one new data record as taught by Ortiz to enable tracking of data usage and interconnections to establish an audit trail for downstream analysis in the event of a breach and to track statistics on data sets to further help improve query performance of Brown (Ortiz, paragraphs 110 and 231).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-10, 34-47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
