DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “receiving a pull request from the schema repository, the pull request being associated with a submitted schema.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instant specification at [0058] describes what a pull request accomplishes, “The pull request may indicate that the user wishes that their new schema be merged with the schemas stored in schema repository 150. According to some embodiments, the pull request may relate to a new schema. According to some embodiments, the pull request may correspond to an update to a schema that already exists within schema 151.”
Agrawal [0023-0024] discloses at least comparing schemas and updating the schema. The update does not exist in a vacuum. Such an update would have to be gathered/retrieved in order to update the schema. Such a comparison and retrieval operation is analogous to the above described passage regarding what a pull request describes.
The Applicant further states that the cited art does not disclose “in response to determining that the submitted schema complies with the linting rules and passes the compatibility check, causing the submitted schema to be written to the schema repository.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Agarwal [0024, 0055-0056] discloses updating (writing) a schema based at least on rules of compatibility (i.e. linting rules) and in paragraphs [0028-0031] Agarwal further describes identifying whether the submitted schema is compatible with an existing schema based at least on different attributes/structure/definition. Whitney [0069] describes compatibility checks by at least comparing one schema to an existing schema for interoperability (i.e. compatibility) based on particular rules. Once the interoperability is confirmed, the schema is stored based on particular rules, the metadata is generated (i.e. and also stored because generating a data structure does not happen in a vacuum; It has to be stored somewhere). As such, the combination of Agarwal and Whitney disclose the above argued feature.
The Applicant further states that the “rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction by selectively extracting and combining disparate teachings from three separate prior art documents.” The Examiner respectively disagrees.
The Examiner relied at least on Graham v Deere factual inquiries to combine the references as described below.
Determining the scope and content of the prior art:
Both Agarwal and Whitney deal with having appropriate schemas.
Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art:
The claims describe storing a schema when it passes linting and compatibility rules. Agarwal discloses writing a schema when linting rules are checked and a schema is updated; And Whitney discloses checking for interoperability of schemas.
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Agarwal with Whitney in order to store an updated schema if it is compatible with a previous schema.
As such, the cited art discloses the above argued features.
No further specific arguments are made.
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, 4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) and further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133).
Claim 1: Agarwal discloses a method of registering a schema to a schema repository, the method comprising:
receiving a pull request from the schema repository, the pull request being associated with a submitted schema [0023-0024]. [See at least evaluating an updated XML schema.]
retrieving linting rules from the schema repository [0028-0031]. [See at least identifying whether the submitted schema is compatible with an existing schema based at least on different attributes/structure/definition.]
Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose the linting rules defining one or more of a syntax rule and a format rule of schemas to be stored in the schema repository, and the linting rules comprising instructions executable to correct occurrences of improper formatting or incorrect syntax in the submitted schema.
However, Naveh [0018, 0032] discloses having a schema (such as an XML schema) with particular rules and correcting errors in the schema. The correction of the errors implies at least a correction of syntactic and/or formatting rules.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Naveh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that a schema is free of errors for appropriate processing of data.
Agarwal as modified further discloses:
determining, by performing a linting process on the submitted schema, whether the submitted schema complies with the linting rules [0028-0031]. [See at least identifying whether the submitted schema is compatible with an existing schema based at least on different attributes/structure/definition.]
performing a compatibility check on the submitted schema by comparing the submitted schema with at least one existing schema stored in the schema repository[0028-0031]. [See at least identifying whether the submitted schema is compatible with an existing schema.]
Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the submitted schema complies with the linting rules and passes the compatibility check, causing the submitted schema to be written to the schema repository.
However, Agarwal [0024, 0055-0056] discloses updating a schema; And Whitney [0069] discloses comparing one schema to an existing schema for interoperability (i.e. compatibility) based on particular rules. Once the interoperability is, the schema is stored.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Whitney. One would have been motivated to do so in order to store an updated schema if it is compatible with a previous schema.
Claim 4: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the schema repository comprises a GitHub repository.
However, a type of repository used does not provide any additional functionality. Rather, it is an intended use of storing data in a particular database. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal to store data in a particular storage, such as GitHub, in order to satisfy user requirements for storage and also to be able to access data from a particular platform.
Claim 11: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1 and Agrawal further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method of claim 1 [0081].
Claim 12: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1 and Agrawal further discloses computing device comprising: a processor; and memory storing executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method of claim 1 [0081].
Claim 13: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 12 and Agrawal further discloses system for facilitating asynchronous communication, the system comprising: the computing device of claim 12; a communication platform; and a schema repository [0081].
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133) and further in view of Huang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0197130).
Claim 2: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the schema repository stores schemas used to send data via an asynchronous communication platform.
However, Huang [0021] discloses sending data asynchronously using an Apache Kafka platform.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Huang. One would have been motivated to do so in order for each data source to send data “in an asynchronous manner.”
Claim 3: Agarwal as modified discloses the method of Claim 2, and Huang, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the asynchronous communication platform comprises a Kafka platform [0021].
Claim 10: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose pushing the submitted schema to a data stream of a communication platform.
However, Agrawal [0027-0031] discloses sending modifications to a schema and Huang [0021] discloses sending information using an Apache Kafka platform. Kafka is at least “a distributed streaming platform” that pushes information.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Huang. One would have been motivated to do so in order for each data source to send data “in an asynchronous manner.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133) and further in view of Lu et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0294754).
Claim 5: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose sending the submitted schema to a validation device for manual validation.
However, Agarwal in view of Lu [0056] discloses sending a file to a customer to verify a schema.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Lu. One would have been motivated to do so in order for a “customer who wants to verify their own configuration file manually.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133) and further in view of Thomas et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0117105).
Claim 6: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose receiving a commit notification confirming that the submitted schema has been written to the schema repository.
However, Agarwal in view of Thomas [0027] discloses sending a notification when a schema is updated (i.e. written).
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Thomas. One would have been motivated to do so in order for a client to be aware of schema changes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133) and further in view of Coleman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0253325).
Claim 7: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 1, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose compiling class bindings based on the submitted schema.
According to the instant specification (Page 11), class bindings “may be auto-generate code” based on a schema. Coleman [0144] discloses auto-generating code based on a schema.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Coleman. One would have been motivated to do so in order “to correctly configure the database.”
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0082560) in view of Whitney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0143923) further in view of Naveh (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0061133) further in view of Coleman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0253325) and further in view of Samal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0206932).
Claim 8: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 7, but Agarwal alone does not explicitly disclose publishing the class bindings to a class bindings repository.
However, Coleman [0144] discloses auto-generating code based on a schema and Samal [0029] discloses software packages that store particular code.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal with Coleman and Samal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to store and share particular code.
Claim 9: Agarwal discloses the method of Claim 8, and Samal, for the same reasons as above further discloses wherein the class bindings repository comprises a NuGet feed [0029].
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights