DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/08/25 has been entered. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recite "said non-header table" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims;
Claim 3 recite "said iteration of comprised columns" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 4 is also rejected for the same reason due to its dependency on claim 3.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi (US 2015/0254255) in view of Polat (US 2009/0164413) and further in view of Joshi (US 2020/0125746).
Regarding claim 1, Trivedi discloses:
A computing system comprising: at least one hardware processor;
at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor; and one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
search a relational database for a primary key candidate column in a first database table, wherein the primary key candidate column is characterized by only containing content which has unique and non-null values for each row and wherein said database table is comprised in said relational database ([0137] For identification of the primary key, compliance of the column to the following rules may be checked. One column out of the pair of columns corresponding to the column pair names in the TENTATIVELIST is identified for checking for primary key characteristics compliance [0139] 2. None of the column values of the column identified have a NULL value. If a NULL value is found, then foreign key characteristics is checked.);
iterate through a plurality of rows of said table and within said each row iteration iterate through a set of character offsets comprised in an iterated cell of said primary key candidate column; for each of said iterated character offsets, read an associated character value and add said character value to a regular expression, wherein said regular expression is constructed in such a way that if said regular expression is tested against a string having said character value at a same string offset then said regular expression returns "true" ([0107] the pair of column names for which the strings are identified as phonetically sufficiently similar are added into a set called MATCHSET [0109] At block 206, the strings of the column name pairs of the MATCHSET are compared to generate a string comparison score. String comparisons compare the characters of a string and the positions of the characters in the string. String comparisons provide information on whether the spelling of the column names is sufficiently matching);
test said regular expression against a plurality of cell values in a column of a second database table; and on a condition that said regular expression tests returns true for each of said plurality of cell values: ([0109] At block 206, the strings of the column name pairs of the MATCHSET are compared to generate a string comparison score. String comparisons compare the characters of a string and the positions of the characters in the string. String comparisons provide information on whether the spelling of the column names is sufficiently matching, [0109]-[0125]).
Trivedi fails to disclose “retrieve a business object definition from a business object repository, wherein said business object definition comprises at least one header table and metadata related to a schema of said header table; mark said column associated as a foreign key candidate of said primary key candidate column”
However, Polat teaches retrieve a business object definition from a business object repository, wherein said business object definition comprises at least one header table and metadata related to a schema of said header table by ([0012] a method 100 includes receiving a table of data from a source in a format specific to the source at 110. A table header is read from the received table of data at 120. The table header includes a data schema specific to a destination service in the received table. [0013] the destination services comprise business objects having different data schema and the table of data comprises comma separated values. The table of data format corresponds to a relational database. The table of data from the source service corresponds to legacy application data and the destination service corresponds to a new application to which a user is upgrading. In one embodiment, the table header data and table data encapsulate data that corresponds to a destination service structure and service interface name).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Polat into the teaching of Trivedi because the references similarly disclose database processing and/or primary and/or foreign key identification. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Trivedi to further include the as in Polat in order to be able to identify relationships within business object-specific data.
Trivedi, Polat fails to disclose “mark said column associated as a foreign key candidate of said primary key candidate column”
However, Joshi teaches the above limitation by ([0197] the uniqueness test may be performed by filtering columns which are unique and flagging one or more of these columns as potential primary key columns [0213] and flag the columns as potential primary-foreign key pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joshi into the teaching of Trivedi, Polat because the references similarly disclose database processing and/or primary and/or foreign key identification. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in the combination of references to further include the flagging of foreign key columns as in Joshi in order to be able to identify relationships that may affects the security of the data (Joshi, [0061]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi (US 2015/0254255) in view of Polat (US 2009/0164413) and Joshi (US 2020/0125746) and further in view of Hermanns (US 2013/0326464).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, Trivedi, Polat, Joshi fail to disclose “generate a custom business object view based on said business object definition and include said non-header table in a customized table view of a the custom business object”
However, Hermanns teaches the above limitation by ([0045], [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hermanns into the teaching of Trivedi, Polat, Joshi because the references similarly disclose database processing and/or primary and/or foreign key identification. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in the combination of references to further include the customized views of business data as in Hermanns because it “allows the definition of custom views on top of business objects exposed via a SADL mode specific external structure available to users” (Hermanns, [0045]).
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 10/08/25.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169