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 .
The Amendment filed on 02/09/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/773,496 of which claims 18, 20 are canceled and claims 21, 22 are added. Claims 1-17, 19, 21, and 22 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-17, 19, 21, and 22 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-17, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0277029; hereinafter “Green”) in view of Selig et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0004578; hereinafter “Selig”) and further in view Biggerstaff (U.S. PGPub 2010/0199257) and further in view of Fey et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/089899; hereinafter “Fey”) and Ahn et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0042338; hereinafter “Ahn”).
As per claims 1 and 11, Green discloses a method, comprising:
matching, the definition to a target structure for a second computing platform, wherein the first and second computing platforms operate in first and second computing environments that are different from one another. (See paras. 19-20, 265, wherein providing transformed content between semantic environments, B2B web environments, system-to-system transactions are disclosed, also See paras. 50, 215, and 309, wherein matching process are disclosed, also See Fig. 14, para. 257-258, SOLx system, business-to-business (B2B), various platforms in which “Local Platform 1408 (associated with the source 1402), with a Target Platform 1410 (associated with a target to whom the communication is addressed or is otherwise consumed by) and with a Global Platform 1412 (separate from the source 1402 and target” are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
However, Green fails to disclose reading, by an automation platform, a definition of a first computing platform, the definition specifying configuration information for a platform-level conversion of a first data map to a second data map, the first data map used by the first computing platform in mapping data from one format to another.
On the other hand, Selig teaches reading, by an automation platform, a definition of a first computing platform, the definition specifying configuration information for a platform-level conversion of a first data map to a second data map, the first data map used by the first computing platform in mapping data from one format to another. (See Figs. 5,6, paras. 50, 59, 63-64, wherein configuration files, utilization of schema definition for data transport for specifying mappings between platforms in which “utilizes a developed Domain Specific Language (DSL) for schema definition that has generalized the requirements for data transport and an invented tool that obviates the reliance on custom software for every data type and every transport medium. This tool provides a simple textual language for specifying mappings between the platform-specific layouts of data types and the transformed layouts in the selected transport medium. A network messaging infrastructure allows applications to configure various transport topologies for delivering data across platforms. By providing a connotative and intuitive grammar that allows users to define how data is to be automatically encoded/decoded for transport between computing systems, this capability eliminates the need for hand-crafting custom solutions for every combination of platform and transport medium” are disclosed, also See Figs. 7, 11, paras. 120-123, 125-127, wherein configuration files, applying data schema treatments and semantic mappings processes are disclosed; as taught by Selig.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Selig teachings in the Green system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method for realtime processing of streaming data taught by Selig in the Green system effectively normalizing and converting structured content. In addition, both of the references (Green and Selig) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Green and Selig fails to disclose generating, based on the first data map, a source transform runnable on the first computing platform; extracting from the definition transformation instructions as constrained by the configuration information.
On the other hand, Biggerstaff teaches generating, based on the first data map, a source transform runnable on the first computing platform; (See Tables 3, 5, para. 663, claim 1, wherein transformation-based program generation process, data mapping to their definitions functions, and generating transformation process are disclosed; as taught by Biggerstaff.)
extracting from the definition transformation instructions as constrained by the configuration information. (See Figs. 48A-48B, paras. 30, 465, 520, wherein extracting data from APC and binds of transformation process, and configuration process on meeting set constraints are disclosed; as taught by Biggerstaff.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Biggerstaff teachings in the combination of Green and Selig system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method for automated partitioning of a computation for parallel or other high capability architecture taught by Biggerstaff in the combination of Green and Selig system effectively normalizing and converting structured content. In addition, both of the references (Green, Selig, and Biggerstaff) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Green, Selig, and Biggerstaff fails to disclose determining from the transformation instructions, a generalized representation of the transformation instructions.
On the other hand, Fey teaches determining from the transformation instructions, a generalized representation of the transformation instructions. (See Fig. 1, paras. 51, 55, wherein transformation instruction assigned to node corresponding reference symbols are disclosed; as taught by Fey.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Fey teachings in the combination of Green, Selig, and Biggerstaff system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method for computer-assisted analysis of buggy source code in a hardware description language taught by Fey in the combination of Green, Selig, and Biggerstaff system effectively normalizing and converting structured content. In addition, both of the references (Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, and Fey) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, and Fey fails to disclose determining an intent from the generalized representation; and using the intent to generate an artifact including logic used by the second computing platform, wherein the artifact defines the second data map that is usable by the second computing platform to generate a target transform that is runnable in the second computing environment.
On the other hand, Ahn teaches determining an intent from the generalized representation; (See paras. 97-99, wherein registering intent of new application and transmitting registered intent to device in which “electronic device 101 may store a file including the description and at least one function in the platform. The file may include information associated with an intent that is registered in the external electronic device in response to installation of an application in the external electronic device 101 The platform may include a file associated with at least one function for each application executed by at least one external electronic device which exists or enters the communication area configured by the electronic device” [0099] are disclosed; as taught by Ahn.)
and using the intent to generate an artifact including logic used by the second computing platform, wherein the artifact defines the second data map that is usable by the second computing platform to generate a target transform that is runnable in the second computing environment. (See paras. 91, 132, wherein generating a platform for registering an intent and generating file associated with application process are disclosed, also See paras. 114, 135, wherein process of data mapping to functions in which “first electronic device may transfer the input data to the broker 913 and may perform mapping in operation 1014. The first electronic device may map a description and at least one function of the first application 916 via which the message is input and a description and at least one function that are stored in advance before the message is input. Via the mapping, the first electronic device may determine the data input by the user” [0135] are disclosed, also See para. 137, wherein process of executing data via registered intent are disclosed, also See paras. 142, 147-148, wherein performing function by an application associated with intent in which “electronic device 101 may perform a function via an intent corresponding to the application in operation 1116. When a user executes the application, and performs a desired function, the electronic device 101 may compare the result of execution of the function with a description of the application stored in advance in a platform. Via the comparison, the electronic device 101 may map data input by the user to the platform” [0142] are disclosed; as taught by Ahn.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Ahn teachings in the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, and Fey system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method for performing application-related interoperation taught by Ahn in the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, and Fey system effectively normalizing and converting structured content. In addition, both of the references (Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein building, by the automation platform, a registry of objects; (See Figs. 5, 17, paras. 52-53, 257-259, wherein registered data are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
and adding the registry of objects to a plurality of definitions that include the definition. (See paras. 230, 263, wherein adding data process are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 3 and 13, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses updating the definition to include results from the matching. (See paras. 230, 263, wherein adding data process are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 50, 80, 101, wherein updating process are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 4 and 14, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein the querying the registry of objects to identify an intent of operations, wherein the querying is performed responsive to user interaction with a user interface of the automation platform. (See paras. 115, 296, wherein processing user requests, recognizing intent process are disclosed, also See Figs. 5, 17, paras. 52-53, 258-259, wherein candidate search engine functions, registered data are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination of Green, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn fails to disclose wherein running the target transform on the second computing platform produces a result, and wherein the artifact is usable with test data to fine tune the result of running the target transform so that the result replicates a behavior of the source transform.
On the other hand, Selig teaches wherein running the target transform on the second computing platform produces a result, and wherein the artifact is usable with test data to fine tune the result of running the target transform so that the result replicates a behavior of the source transform. (See Figs. 5-6, paras. 42-43, wherein coordinating schemas of two platforms process are disclosed, also See Table 1, Fig. 8, paras. 106, 110, wherein generating artifacts process in which “A MetaGen 804 process automatically converts Application artifacts into Metalog Data Schema representations and adds them to a Metalog 702. Two techniques for a MetaGen process are disassembly and parsing. The disassembly technique considers executable artifacts generated by compiling the Source Code 807 of an Application and analyzes them for syntactical constructs that define the Data Schema of the Application. The Source Code parsing technique applies introspection tools to the Source Code 807 and creates the inventory of data structure definitions, from which the Data Schema can be selected” [0110] are disclosed, also See Figs. 7, 17, paras. 50, 101-102, 121, 125, wherein transferring data between platforms process in which “a target Platform (Platform B). At startup, OCIS reads into the Representation Processor 703: a session configuration file, rules from a CEP Knowledge Base (KB) 704, and ontologies from an Ontolog 705. The configuration parameters can contain references to Data Schema identifiers and expressions that contain data field selectors in terms of the associated Data Schema. During a run, data from source Applications is received by the Representation Processor 703. OCIS interprets the Data Schema in the received data and uses it to evaluate the ingest filter associated with the identifier” [0125] are disclosed; as taught by Selig.)
See claims 1 and 11 for motivation above.
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein the definition comprises source structure of the first computing platform, and wherein the target structure comprises a document structure, a database table structure, an end-state document, a data definition, or a combination thereof. (See paras. 15, 35, 83, wherein XML tagging structure, definitions, structured data, data description are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein the definition specifies what logic is attached to what node, what queries to run, or a combination thereof. (See paras. 15, 67, 109-115, wherein definition, logic for handling structured data are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein the definition is specified in extensible markup language (XML) files, text files, or tables, and wherein the definition is stored in an intermediary format. (See Fig. 17, paras. 15, 262, 266, wherein XML tagging structure, XML-tagged business objects, XML formatted documents are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein querying the registry of objects returns references that point to the objects. (See Figs. 5, 17, paras. 52-53, 258-259, wherein registered data are disclosed, also See para. 228-230, 246-249, wherein translation engine, search functions are disclosed, also See paras. 225, 315, wherein references of data are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claims 10 and 20, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, Fey, and Ahn discloses wherein the logic used by the second computing platform comprises transformation logic, mapping logic, validation logic, or a combination thereof. (See Fig. 4, paras. 13-15, 321, wherein transformation, mapping and feedback loop process, logic for handling structured data are disclosed; as taught by Green.)
As per claim 21, the combination of Green, Selig, Biggerstaff, and Fey fails to disclose identifying a language intention from the generalized representation.
On the other hand, Ahn teaches identifying a language intention from the generalized representation. (See paras. 97-99, wherein registering intent of new application and transmitting registered intent to device in which “electronic device 101 may store a file including the description and at least one function in the platform. The file may include information associated with an intent that is registered in the external electronic device in response to installation of an application in the external electronic device 101 The platform may include a file associated with at least one function for each application executed by at least one external electronic device which exists or enters the communication area configured by the electronic device” [0099] are disclosed; as taught by Ahn.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 22, the combination of Green, Selig, Fey, and Ahn fails to disclose storing, by a converter, the generalized representation in an interpreted form, wherein the interpreted form includes at least one of a symbol, a command, and an expression.
On the other hand, Biggerstaff teaches storing, by a converter, the generalized representation in an interpreted form, wherein the interpreted form includes at least one of a symbol, a command, and an expression. (See paras. 309-314, wherein specifying target computation expressed in terms of domain specific operators and operands are disclosed, also See paras. 417-419, wherein defining intent of convolution by equation are disclosed; as taught by Biggerstaff.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
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 LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights