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 .
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, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. US patent application 2013/0086104 [herein “Morrison”], in view of Noble et al. US patent 5,926,810 [herein “Noble”], and further in view of Metadata in DBMS and its types. 2023, pp. 1-3. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dbms/metadata-in-dbms-and-its-types/ [herein “Metadata”].
Claim 1 recites “A method, comprising: generating a plurality of templates for content managed by a content management system, wherein each template of the plurality of templates comprises fields for entry of designated information within a document and the content comprises a plurality of documents in a content store;”
The instant specification [0004] defines a database table schema as the structure (i.e., logical grouping) for a type (i.e., attribute) of content (i.e., documents) and defines [0029] a metadata template as a logical grouping of metadata attributes. A schema can be associated with each metadata template [0034].
Morrison interrogates data structures (i.e., templates) of a data source, to determine (i.e., generate) a negotiated schema (i.e., meta schema) that is most closely related to those data structures (i.e., source schemas), by comparing to preexisting schema templates, applying heuristics based on user input, metadata tags, or machine learning [0021].
Claim 1 further recites “correlating the plurality of templates to a common meta schema instead of maintaining a separate schema for each separate template;”
Morrison generates the negotiated (i.e., common) schema that represents the interrelationships (i.e., correlations) between source schemas, with comparison and linking of the underlying source schemas [0023].
Claim 1 further recites “receiving a query for processing against the plurality of documents in the content store; and performing query processing by: generating a query schema from the common meta schema, wherein the query schema corresponds to a template for at least a subset of the plurality of the documents;”
According to the instant specification [0040], a set of sales contract documents can be described by a metadata template containing a list of fields (i.e., attributes) that are populated (i.e., entered) with a set of metadata (i.e., designated information) [0031], such as date, customer name and price.
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema to obtain a combined rich query response that includes interrelated data points (i.e., field values) in multiple source schemas together with associated metadata [0020].
Claim 1 further recites “transforming the query using at least the query schema generated from the common meta schema; and executing the transformed query against a query store that stores metadata for the plurality of documents, wherein an output of the query processing comprises an identification of at least a portion of the subset of the plurality of documents in the content store of the content management system.”
Users in Morrison query (i.e., execute against) the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., output) a combined rich query response that includes (i.e., identifies) data points (i.e., portion of subset) in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata [0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024].
Morrison does not disclose claim element “content store”; however, Noble uses a database (i.e., content store in content management system) to store objects (i.e., documents) in tables of rows and columns (Noble: 1:10-16). The database contains one or more schemas, each is a logical owner of a set of objects representing an entity (Noble: 5:15-20). A schema defines a specific format (i.e., template) in which its objects are accessed (Noble: 6:1-3).
Morrison does not disclose claim element “query schema”; however, Noble creates (i.e., generates) a view (i.e., query schema) of the universal schema (i.e., common meta schema) to transform information from the new format of the view to the old format of an underlying schema through the universal schema (Noble: 6:31-33). The view is defined by a SQL command (i.e., query) (Noble: 6:44-47).
Morrison does not disclose claim element “query store”; however, metadata in relational databases is stored in a data dictionary or system catalog (i.e., query store), and holds schema information about tables, columns, data types, table relationship, and constraints (Metadata: pp. 1/3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Noble and Metadata to Morrison. One having ordinary skill in art would have found motivation to utilize the universal schema of Noble as the meta schema of Morrison, on which SQL views are defined to serve existing queries against an underlying source schema.
Claims 7 and 13 are analogous to claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising forming the query into an intermediate representation using the meta schema.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, where Noble creates a view of the universal schema (i.e., meta schema) to transform (i.e., forming) information (i.e., query) from the new format of the view to the old format of an underlying schema through (i.e., using) the universal schema (i.e., intermediate representation) (Noble: 6:31-33). The view is defined by a SQL command (i.e., query) (Noble: 6:44-47).
Claims 9 and 15 are analogous to claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the query is transformed from a query language format into a format corresponding to a field of the template for the document.”
In Morrison, data structures (i.e., templates) from a data source (i.e., documents) include database tables with foreign keys, web APIs returning JSON key-value pairs (i.e., fields) as result sets, flat files such as CVS, or NoSQL data sources [0019].
Morrison teaches claim 3, but does not disclose claim element “query language”; however, Noble accesses databases by code written in SQL (i.e., query language) (Noble: 5:46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Noble to Morrison. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the universal schema of Noble as the meta schema of Morrison, on which SQL views are defined to serve existing queries against an underlying source schema.
Claims 10 and 16 are analogous to claim 4, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 4, wherein an identification is made of the fields in the meta schema that correlate to the query, and populating the transformed query with identified fields from the meta schema.”
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema (i.e., meta schema) to obtain a combined (i.e., correlated) rich query response that includes data points in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata (i.e., identified fields) [0020], where the data points are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024].
Claims 11 and 17 are analogous to claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one document of the plurality of documents was generated using a template of the plurality of templates and the query schema is generated in response to the query and comprises fields that encompass the template being queried.”
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., generate) a combined rich query response that includes data points (i.e., documents) in data structures (i.e., templates) from multiple data sources together with associated metadata ([0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated [0024]).
Noble discloses “access to their metadata with a set of tables or views often called system catalog or data dictionary… several types of metadata consistent with their uses and domain” (Fig. 4B-4D).
Claim 20 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the common meta data schema includes a comprehensive set of fields that encompass the individual fields within the plurality of templates.”
Morrison discloses “link together related data points that may be stored in dissimilar data structures” ([0017]) “may append metadata to the negotiated schema” ([0046]). Wherein Morrison’s data points and metadata are examples of the fields claimed).
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above respectively, in view of Noble and Metadata, and further in view of What are Search Engines. Feb. 2024, pp. 1-9. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-are-search-engines-and-how-do-they-work/ [herein “SearchEngine”].
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating the document; populating metadata for the document; creating a metadata instance for the document; and creating an index object in a query store for the document.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, but do not disclose this claim; however, the crawler of a search engine scans the web to visit available websites, and reads (i.e., creates) the associated webpages (i.e., documents) to collect (i.e., populate) the corresponding metadata (i.e., metadata instance). The indexer organizes, sorts and stores the crawled metadata (SearchEngine: pp. 2/9) in a database (i.e., query store) (SearchEngine: pp. 4/9). The indexed metadata (i.e., index object) is used by the ranker to analyze a query, find matching pages, and present results to users (SearchEngine: pp. 3/9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of SearchEngine to Morrison and Noble. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize an industry standard search engine to crawl, index and rank objects of Noble in order to answer queries of Morrison as search results independent of schema changes.
Claims 8 and 14 are analogous to claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the query processing produces a set of document identifiers, and a hydrated result set is produced by retrieving documents corresponding to the document identifiers.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, but do not disclose this claim; however, the crawler of a search engine scans the web to visit available websites, and reads the associated webpages (i.e., documents) to collect the corresponding metadata. The indexer organizes, sorts and stores the crawled metadata (SearchEngine: pp. 2/9). The indexed metadata is used by the ranker to analyze a query, find (i.e., produce) matching pages (i.e., document IDs), and present search results to users, often enriched (i.e., hydrated) with other elements such as ads or direct answers (i.e., retrieved documents) (SearchEngine: pp. 3/9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of SearchEngine to Morrison and Noble. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize an industry standard search engine to crawl, index and rank objects of Noble in order to answer queries of Morrison as search results independent of schema changes.
Claims 12 and 18 are analogous to claim 6 and are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the applied art fails to disclose; "generating a query schema from the common meta schema, wherein the query schema corresponds to a template for at least a subset of the plurality of documents".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Morrison in view of Noble and further in view of Metadata does disclose; "generating a query schema from the common meta schema, wherein the query schema corresponds to a template for at least a subset of the plurality of documents (Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema to obtain a combined rich query response that includes interrelated data points (i.e., field values) in multiple source schemas together with associated metadata [0020]; Users in Morrison query (i.e., execute against) the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., output) a combined rich query response that includes (i.e., identifies) data points (i.e., portion of subset) in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata [0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024]; wherein Morrison’s negotiated schema corresponds to the common meta schema claimed, and wherein Morrison’s combined rich query corresponds to the transformed query claimed; and Noble creates (i.e., generates) a view (i.e., query schema) of the universal schema (i.e., meta schema) to transform information from the new format of the view to the old format of an underlying schema through the universal schema (Noble: 6:31-33). The view is defined by a SQL command (i.e., query) (Noble: 6:44-47); wherein Noble’s view of the universal schema corresponds to the query schema claimed).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA B COLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GIOVANNA B COLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights