Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 12 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
2. The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/29/2025 has been acknowledged and approved.
Response to Arguments
3. This office action has been issued in response to amendment filed 10/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicants’ arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered in light of the instant amendment as they relate to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 as will be discussed below. Accordingly, this action has been made final.
(1) (Independent claims 1, 8 and 15) Applicants argue that Dubey et al (US 20220391419) in view of Roth (US 20030055835) do not disclose, “transforming a second metric having a second initial schema to conform to the second production schema specific to the second data domain based on determining that the second initial schema is inconsistent with the second production schema”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraphs 61 and 84 of Roth indicates, “The loader function 380 desirably interprets the XML formatted data 150 and converts the information into a data warehouse compatible form. In one embodiment, the XML formatted data 150 is automatically translated into database instructions and commands such as SQL statements. The resulting database instructions are executed to store the XML formatted data 150 in a table 385 which defines each database component 430 or domain maintained by the data warehouse 155. Additionally, the fields 185, defined in the XML formatted data 150, are desirably converted to an appropriate format for storage in an associated database field 390 which make up the table 385 defining the database component 430 or biological domain’’, which implies that the system then converts this XML formatted data into other schema down the road.
Some pertinent mappings of above-mentioned concept:
Lan et al, US 10,999,357, [Column 6, lines 1-5 (“convert these production data and/or sensing data into a data value set corresponding to the target schema”)].
Eberlein et al, US 20200364604, [Paragraph 20 (“When using the data pipeline, for example, data that is read using the customer production data schema 108 can be transformed and stored in the database tables 116, accessible by the data science schema 110. Customers (for example, through their administrators) can control the data science schema 110, including defining the data that is accessible using the data science schema”)].
Examiner’s Note
4. Preliminary mappings of some relevant prior arts:
Zionts et al, US 20230359667, [Paragraph 68 (“For example, unified graphs may pose a
challenge with respect to supporting different experiences and/or levels of access for different
entities and/or types of users such as customers, employees, suppliers, and/or partners, for
example, and/or with respect to providing partners and/or public API users with a schema
geared towards their particular integration and/or app development needs, for example. Also,
unified graphs may pose challenges with respect to providing client-specific backend-for-
frontend (BFF) and/or experience-driven schemas alongside a canonical domain-driven schema,
for example. Unified graphs may also pose challenges with respect to restricting access to
experimental and/or non-stable parts of a schema while still allowing access for testing and/or
early adopters, for example. Generally, such challenges may be summarized as a question of
how to serve multiple different audiences with a single unified graph”)] [Paragraphs 52 and 91
(“production graphs” or “production”)] [Paragraphs 33 and 112 (“sequential performance of operation checks”)].
Cavalcanti et al, US 20220400112, [Paragraph 70 (“particularly defining the level or type of access available to user or group of users. In some embodiments, a product role can be used to broadly define the role-based domain access permissions of a set of users associated with a selected domain. Product roles include, but are not limited to, user, guest, helpseeker, developer, customer, auditor, product administrator (“Product Admin”), view only, reporting, none (e.g., a product role defining no product access), any other product role that may serve to define access to a resource. For example, in some embodiments, a product admin product role is permissioned to alter settings for a particular product (e.g., workflows, settings, and schemas).”’)].
Dubey et al, US 20220391419, [Paragraph 63 (“control may correspond to the access level, i.e., the first set of access levels and the second set of access levels. In an embodiment, a default value for the access control may be defined to be the public access level for the plurality of users to access each of the plurality of fields. Moreover, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the public access level may not have access of at least one of the plurality of fields with the protected access level and the private access level. Further, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the protected access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object. However, data of at least one of the plurality of fields having the private access level may be selectively masked from one or more of the plurality of users having the protected access level. In addition, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the private access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object”)] [Paragraphs 4, 42 and 45 (“Once the generated query is verified, the dynamic formation of metadata unit 228, may dynamically fetch and render the data corresponding to the set of allowed domain objects, to the at least one user”’, i.e., data metric and production data and production schema].
Nachenberg et al, US 9,740,876, [Column 11, lines 40-67 through column 12, lines 1-2 (“In embodiments in which security telemetry 301 in the data store(s) 311] is organized into separate file-system directories that correspond to the aforementioned categories (e.g., sending organization, administrative unit, schema, time, pseudonymization status, etc.), granular access can be granted to any subset of the security telemetry 301 through the use of file-system-based access permissions at a directory level, rather than more complex and slow intra-file-level controls (e.g., access at an individual row level). Note that a single entity may grant access to its security telemetry 301 to more than one analytics client 305, each with its own set of telemetry access requirements. Also, a given participating organization 303 can selectively grant permission to one analytics client 305 while denying access to another”)].
Burghart, US 20120110632, [Paragraph 25 (“Once authenticated at this level, the user receives authority to operate within the domain. However, this authority to operate may not extend to all resources within the service domain. For example, if the file sharing service also includes a set of files with additional access restrictions (e.g., files that only employees of a particular company can access), then the system 100 can apply a local access control schema independent of the schema used for access at the service domain level. In this case, the file domain may independently apply a completely separate schema (e.g., a schema to authenticate the user as an authorized employee with access to the files) before authorizing access into the file domain”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al (US 20220391419) in view of Roth (US 20030055835).
Claim 1:
Dubey suggests a computer-implemented method comprising: associating a first data access level with a first production schema specific to a first data domain [Dubey: Paragraph 63 (“control may correspond to the access level, i.e., the first set of access levels and the second set of access levels. In an embodiment, a default value for the access control may be defined to be the public access level for the plurality of users to access each of the plurality of fields. Moreover, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the public access level may not have access of at least one of the plurality of fields with the protected access level and the private access level. Further, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the protected access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object. However, data of at least one of the plurality of fields having the private access level may be selectively masked from one or more of the plurality of users having the protected access level. In addition, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the private access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object”). Paragraphs 4, 42 and 45 (“Once the generated query is verified, the dynamic formation of metadata unit 228, may dynamically fetch and render the data corresponding to the set of allowed domain objects, to the at least one user”, i.e., data metric and production data and production schema)]. Dubey suggests associating a second data access level with a second production schema specific to a second data domain, wherein the first data access level is different from the second data access level [Dubey: Paragraph 63 (“control may correspond to the access level, i.e., the first set of access levels and the second set of access levels. In an embodiment, a default value for the access control may be defined to be the public access level for the plurality of users to access each of the plurality of fields. Moreover, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the public access level may not have access of at least one of the plurality of fields with the protected access level and the private access level. Further, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the protected access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object. However, data of at least one of the plurality of fields having the private access level may be selectively masked from one or more of the plurality of users having the protected access level. In addition, one or more of the plurality of users with access control defined to be the private access level may have access of entire schema of the domain object”)]. Dubey suggests storing, in a database, the first metric having the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraphs 25, 40 and 45 (“Once the plurality of domain objects are created, the administrator may assign a second access level from the first set of access levels to each of the plurality of domain objects via the semantic domain layer”)]. Dubey suggests receiving a first access request for the first metric [Dubey: Paragraphs 41-42 (“utilize the metadata information to provide access of at least one domain object from the plurality of domain objects to at least one of the plurality of users” )]. Dubey suggests responding to the first access request for the first metric based on the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraphs 63 and 45 (“access level” and “access of entire schema of the domain object’”’)].
Roth suggests transforming a first metric having a first initial schema to conform to the first production schema specific to the first data domain based on determining that the first initial schema is inconsistent with the first production schema [Roth: Paragraphs 13, 34 and 42 (“converts the structured data format into formatted data, and stores the formatted data in a data warehouse” and “capturing and transforming the data into a formatted data type’’)].
Both references (Dubey and Roth) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dubey and Roth before him/her, to modify the system of Dubey with the teaching of Roth in order to transform data into a storage format [Roth: Paragraphs 13, 34 and 42].
Roth suggests transforming a second metric having a second initial schema to conform to the second production schema specific to the second data domain based on determining that the second initial schema is inconsistent with the second production schema [Roth: Paragraphs 61 and 84 (“The loader function 380 desirably interprets the XML formatted data 150 and converts the information into a data warehouse compatible form. In one embodiment, the XML formatted data 150 is automatically translated into database instructions and commands such as SQL statements. The resulting database instructions are executed to store the XML formatted data 150 in a table 385 which defines each database component 430 or domain maintained by the data warehouse 155. Additionally, the fields 185, defined in the XML formatted data 150, are desirably converted to an appropriate format for storage in an associated database field 390 which make up the table 385 defining the database component 430 or biological domain’’)].
Both references (Dubey and Roth) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Dubey and Roth before him/her, to modify the system of Dubey with the teaching of Roth in order to transform data into various storage formats [Roth: Paragraphs 61 and 84].
Claim 2:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest determining to approve the first access request based on a role of a user account corresponding to the first access request being granted access within the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraph 63].
Claim 3:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest determining to approve the first access request based on an access type of the first access request being permitted within the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraph 63].
Claim 4:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest determining to approve the first access request based on both an access type of the first access request being permitted, and a role of a user account corresponding to the first access request being granted, within the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraph 50 (“plurality of user attributes associated with the plurality of user profiles may be defined based on goal, role, and scope of work”’)].
Claim 5:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest receiving a second access request for a second metric that conforms to the second production schema; and responding to the second access request for the second metric based on the second data access level associated with the second production scheme [Dubey: Paragraph 63].
Claim 6:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest determining to approve the first access request based on a data domain associated with the first access request being included in the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraph 63]. Claim 7:
The combined teachings of Dubey and Roth suggest determining to approve the first access request based on a user account belonging to a team of user accounts included in the first data access level associated with the first production schema [Dubey: Paragraph 50 (“organization ID, team ID, business unit ID”’].
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is essentially the same as claim | except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is essentially the same as claim 3 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is essentially the same as claim 4 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is essentially the same as claim 5 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is essentially the same as claim 6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 7 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above. Claim 16:
Claim 16 is essentially the same as claim 11 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a system and rejected under the same reasons as applied above. Claim 17:
Claim 17 is essentially the same as claim 2 and claim 3 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 4 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above. Claim 19:
Claim 19 is essentially the same as claim 5 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above. Claim 20:
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Conclusion
8. 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 filled 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 mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [Hung D. Le], whose telephone number is [571-270-1404]. The examiner can normally be communicated on [Monday to Friday: 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on [571-272-4080]. 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, contact [800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000].
~TBD~
Hung Le
12/16/2025
/HUNG D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161