DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on April 17th 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 12) the data flow connectors of Narang are not “policy rules for governing how data is at least one of handled, stored, accessed, or protected” as recited by the amended claims because the flow connectors specify data format and transformations. This is not persuasive. Rules specifying data format and transformations are exactly rules governing how data is at least one of handled. Formatting and transforming data is equivalent to handling data. By arguing that data formatting and transformation is not “governance policy rules”, applicant is ignoring the fact that the claims explicitly define the policy rules to be extremely broad by reciting many things in the alternative (i.e. at least one of). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues (pg. 13) the amended claims require the code generated to govern how data is at least one of handled, stored, accessed, or protected which is not taught by Narang. This is not persuasive because applicant again relies on the same logic that Narang’s rules governing data flows, formats, relationships, and transformations are somehow not the same as rules for “handling” data. This is not persuasive for the same reasons given above. As explained in the detailed rejection, Narang explicitly disclose generating code with policy rules for at least handling data.
Applicant also states (pg. 13) that Narang does not disclose the policy area of the GUI. This is not persuasive. Narang clearly discloses a GUI tool with canvas and separate “areas” for accessing objects, code, flow connectors, etc. (see Figs. 2-6). Applicant briefly discusses Miriyala and suggests it does not remedy the deficiencies (pg. 13-14). This argument is not persuasive because Narang was not deficient as suggested by applicant. Applicant does not appear to assert that Miriyala does not disclose what it was relied upon for, or that the combination is improper. Applicant makes the same remarks (pg. 14-15) for the remaining claims, these remarks are also not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: they recite a first set of one or more data governance policy rules; and then the first set of one or more policy rules. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narang et al. US 2018/0189033 A1 in view of Miriyala et al. US 2023/0107891 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Narang discloses:
presenting, by a computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI) of a data platform (Developer’s Workbench Tool is a GUI – abstract, paragraphs 6, 32, Figs. 2, 4), the GUI comprising a canvas (canvas – paragraphs 80-81, Fig. 6 item 620), a toolbox area comprising one or more graphical objects each representing executable code to perform one or more functions (objects represent code abstractions – paragraphs 30, 46-47, Figs. 1-2), and a policy area comprising one or more graphical objects each representing a set of one or more data governance policy rules for governing how network data is at least one of handled, stored, accessed, or protected within the [system] (data mapping and flow connectors govern how data is handled – paragraphs 30, 48-49; these are part of the GUI – see Figs. 2, 6 and paragraphs 80-82; data is “network data” under BRI, see Fig. 2, paragraph 53);
receiving, by the computing system, first user input that causes a first graphical object in the toolbox area to move to the canvas (GUI facilitates user interaction to develop software – paragraphs 6, 32-33, Figs. 3-6), wherein the first graphical object represents first executable code to perform a first set of one or more functions (objects represent software code abstraction – paragraphs 30, 46-47 and Fig. 3);
receiving, by the computing system, second user input that causes a second graphical object in the policy area to move to the canvas, wherein the second graphical object represents a first set of one or more data governance policy rules for governing how data is at least one of handled, stored, accessed, or protected by executable code represented by graphical objects moved to the canvas (GUI facilitates user interaction to develop software including data flow connectors which govern how data is handled – paragraphs 32-33, 80-86 and Figs. 3, 6),
receiving, by the computing system, third user input that causes the data platform to generate output executable code based on the graphical objects in the canvas (user initiates code generation – paragraph 58, Fig. 3); and
outputting the output executable code (synthesize into executable code – paragraphs 6, 58 and Fig. 3 step 340) wherein the executable code is configured to govern how data is at least one of handled, stored, accessed, or protected in accordance with the first set of one or more policy rules when executed within the [system] (code governs at least how data is handled as discussed above – see paragraphs 48-49, 51, 58).
Narang does not explicitly disclose the platform is associated with a software defined network (SDN) but this is taught by Miriyala (SDN architecture with user interface – see abstract, paragraphs 9, 15-16, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narang to be associated with a SDN as taught by Miriyala. Miriyala teaches many conventional benefits that are provided by using SDN (paragraphs 9-10) and as well specific benefits relating to cloud-native SDN architecture (paragraph 13) and allowing inexperienced users to interact via the graphical user interface which reduces errors (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 2, Narang discloses the first executable code is at least one of a utility program, an application, a function, a routine, a script, a processing pipeline, or a solution comprising a plurality of interconnected blocks, each comprising at least one of a utility program, an application, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline (object code abstraction represents software code for a behavior – paragraph 30; thus it is at least an application, a program, a function, a routine, a script or a processing pipeline under the BRI of those terms).
Regarding claim 3, Narang discloses the first set of one or more data governance policy rules comprises at least one of: a data policy rule; a privacy policy rule; a quality policy rule; a retention policy rule; a security policy rule; a naming convention policy rule; a context data policy rule; or an access-model policy rule (data flow connectors – Fig. 1 item 140, paragraph 30; represent relationships and format/transformations; thus they comprise at least a “data policy rule”, “naming convention policy rule” and/or “a context data policy rule” under the BRI; also see paragraph 49 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Narang discloses prior to receiving the third user input: receiving fourth user input that causes a third graphical object in the toolbox area to move to the canvas, wherein the third graphical object represents second executable code to perform a second set of one or more functions (GUI facilitates user interaction to develop software – paragraphs 6, 32-33, Figs. 3-6; objects represent software code abstraction and user can select and connect a plurality of objects – see paragraphs 30, 46-47 and Fig. 3); and
receiving fifth user input that generates an interface between the first executable code of the first graphical object and the second executable code of the third graphical object, wherein the output executable code comprises at least the first executable code, the second executable code, and the interface between the first and second executable code (data flow connectors – paragraphs 30, 48, 80-82 and Figs. 3, 6).
Regarding claim 5, Narang discloses the first graphical object is a first solution comprising a first plurality of interconnected blocks, each comprising at least one of a utility program, an application, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline; and the second graphical object is a second solution comprising a second plurality of interconnected blocks, each comprising at least one of a utility program, an application, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline (object code abstraction represents behaviors performed by software – see paragraphs 15, 30 and 43; thus it is at least an application, a program, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline under the BRI of those terms; also, a software application is a “solution” comprising interconnected blocks/steps).
Regarding claim 6, Narang discloses the first graphical object is a first solution comprising a first plurality of interconnected blocks, each comprising at least one of a utility program, an application, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline (object code abstraction represents behaviors performed by software – see paragraphs 15, 30 and 43; thus it is at least an application, a program, a function, a routine, a script, or a processing pipeline under the BRI of those terms; also, a software application is a “solution” comprising interconnected blocks/steps); and the second graphical object is a processing pipeline (the second object is a “data flow connector” which governs how data is handled including transformations between objects, thus it is a “processing pipeline” because it is a sequence – see paragraphs 30, 48-49, 85-86 and Figs. 3, 6).
Regarding claim 7, Narang discloses receiving fourth user input that modifies at least one of the first executable code of the first graphical object or the first set of one or more data governance policy rules of the second graphical object (GUI allows developer/user to make changes/modify – see Fig. 4, paragraphs 61-67; also see “customize” – Fig. 6 item 616); and receiving by the computing system, fifth user input that creates a fourth graphical object in the toolbox area or the policy area, the fourth graphical object comprising at least one of the modified first executable code or the modified first set of one or more data governance policy rules (the saved object from Fig. 4, is available as an object for the developer in the GUI – see paragraph 6 and Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, Narang does not explicitly disclose the system is a cloud computing system, and wherein the data platform is implemented in the cloud computing system but this is taught by Miriyala as a cloud native SDN (see Title, paragraphs 3, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narang to be a cloud computing system as taught by Miriyala. In fact, Narang itself already suggests this by teaching the Developer Tool is accessible over a network via a client (Fig. 2). Miriyala further teaches and suggests multiple advantages from using a cloud based system (paragraphs 13-15).
Regarding claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 10-15, they are non-transitory computer readable medium claims that correspond to the method of claims 2-7 respectively; so they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a system claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1; the corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Narang also discloses a computer system comprising a processor and memory to perform the method recited by claim 1 (paragraphs 8, 22).
Regarding claims 17-20, they are system claims that correspond to the method of claims 2-5 respectively; therefore they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eldridge et al. US 2007/0240070 A1 discloses a GUI object editor with toolbox for creating programs (abstract, Figs. 2, 9).
Boothroyd et al. US 2017/0263025 A1 discloses a GUI with canvas and toolbox for object layout/alignment (abstract, paragraph 32, Figs. 3-4).
Harrison et al. US 2025/0037336 A1 discloses a GUI with canvas wherein a user can “drag and drop” objects (abstract, paragraph 65, Figs. 2-3).
Sarkar et al. US 2017/0185383 A1 discloses a developer environment that comprises an interactive canvas (e.g. GUI) to automatically generate code/application based on user selections (abstract, paragraph 32, Figs. 1-5).
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 JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights