DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/910927 filed on January 02, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant
3. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner in hopes of reaching a resolution in light of compact prosecution
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 16, 2026 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 7 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant states “The amended claims now explicitly recite monitoring for structural changes to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, and entity relationship mappings. These are not abstract concepts but concrete technical elements of computer data warehouse systems that require automated computer systems to detect and analyze. Modern data warehouses contain complex, interconnected structures with thousands of tables, relationships, and schema elements that cannot be monitored manually or mentally.”
Examiner replies that claim language is still abstract. The abstract idea in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories, changing the grouping is seen as changing the schema.
On Pg. 9 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant states “The claimed system performs operations that are far beyond what could be accomplished through manual or mental processes. Monitoring thousands of data warehouse tables for structural changes, detecting entity relationship mapping disruptions, identifying schema incompatibilities, and executing real-time modifications across complex data warehouse environments requires specialized computer systems implementing the claimed technological solution. The scale and complexity of modern data warehouses, combined with the need for real-time processing, makes mental or manual performance of these operations impossible.”
Examiner replies that claim language is still abstract. The claim amendments are insignificant extra solution activities. The structural modification that disrupt entity relationship mappings is seen as dependent objects being effected by a main object, which is an insignificant extra solution activities.
On Pg. 12 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 103, relating to claim 1, Applicant states “In contrast, the amended claims recite monitoring structural changes to data warehouse entities, entity relationships, or schema definitions within a data warehouse, where the structural changes comprise modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings. These limitations focus on the fundamental architecture of data warehouses, specifically the structural definitions that determine how data is organized, related, and accessed. This is entirely different from Barsness's monitoring of processing element operational states during stream tuple processing.”
Examiner replies that Barsness does teach this concept. Fig. 5 and Par. 0069 Barsness discloses monitoring a graph for state changes. Par. 0067 Barsness discloses corrective action for the changes is resetting the processing which includes changing a configuration of the processing.
On Pg. 12 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 103, relating to claim 1, Applicant states, “The amended claims also recite categorizing each of the structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on predefined criteria pertaining to data warehouse stability or data integrity, where the breaking changes comprise structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings, or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations. This categorization is based on the structural impact to data warehouse architecture and the consequences for data processing operations.”
Examiner replies that Bobak does teach this concept. Bobak teaches based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity (Par. 0414-0416 Bobak discloses identifying changes to data and categorizing the changes based upon which recovery segment the change effects. The categorized change affecting one type of resource is seen as breaking, the categorized change effecting another type of resource is seen as non-breaking);
the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings (Par. 0429 Bobak discloses the changes will cause a disruption to the environment, in the prepared condition for resources, and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goal. The entity relationships mappings are seen as the prepared condition for resources and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goals);
or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations
Barsness and Bobak are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the data graph of Barsness to include the monitoring changes of Bobak, to allow for accessing content in order to respond to system failures more efficiently (Par. 0002-0004 Bobak).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites "continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes to data warehouse entities entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally looking at a graph for changes. “based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity, the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings, or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”.
For example, “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites "wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites " wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”.
For example, “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes”.
For example, “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites "continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes data warehouse entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally looking at a graph for changes. “based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity, the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings, or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”.
For example, “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites "wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites " wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”.
For example, “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes”.
For example, “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites "continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes data warehouse entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally looking at a graph for changes. “based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity, the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings, or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”.
For example, “and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse using event emitters and entities change streams to accommodate the one or more identified structural changes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites "wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites " wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites "wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping the changes into categories.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify changes in a graph and place the changes into categories. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”.
For example, “further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Barsness et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0168748 (herein as ‘Barsness’) and further in view of Bobak et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171730 (herein as ‘Bobak’).
As to claim 1 Barsness teaches a system comprising:
one or more computer processors (Par. 0026 Barsness discloses a processor);
one or more computer memories (Par. 0026 Barsness discloses a memory);
a set of instruction stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes data warehouse entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings (Fig. 5 and Par. 0069 Barsness discloses monitoring a graph for state changes. Par. 0067 Barsness discloses corrective action for the changes is resetting the processing which includes changing a configuration of the processing);
Barsness teaches and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse to accommodate the one or more identified changes, wherein the one or more modifications are executed using an algorithm optimized to minimize disruption or enhance data processing efficiency (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
Barsness does not teach but Bobak teaches based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity (Par. 0414-0416 Bobak discloses identifying changes to data and categorizing the changes based upon which recovery segment the change effects. The categorized change affecting one type of resource is seen as breaking, the categorized change effecting another type of resource is seen as non-breaking);
the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings (Par. 0429 Bobak discloses the changes will cause a disruption to the environment, in the prepared condition for resources, and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goal. The entity relationships mappings are seen as the prepared condition for resources and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goals);
or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations
Barsness and Bobak are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the data graph of Barsness to include the monitoring changes of Bobak, to allow for accessing content in order to respond to system failures more efficiently (Par. 0002-0004 Bobak).
As to claim 2 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the graph).
As to claim 3 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the tuples within the graph. Par. 0022 Barsness discloses the tuples have keys and other metadata).
As to claim 4 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 5 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0077 Barsness discloses the change may be a deletion of an element that will prevent processing. Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 6 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches the operations further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance (Par. 0016 Barsness discloses allowing the user to make changes based upon past events).
As to claim 8 Barsness teaches a method comprising:
continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes data warehouse entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings (Fig. 5 and Par. 0069 Barsness discloses monitoring a graph for state changes. Par. 0067 Barsness discloses corrective action for the changes is resetting the processing which includes changing a configuration of the processing);
Barsness teaches and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse to accommodate the one or more identified changes, wherein the one or more modifications are executed using an algorithm optimized to minimize disruption or enhance data processing efficiency (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
Barsness does not teach but Bobak teaches based on a detection of the one or more changes, categorizing each of the one or more changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more criteria pertaining to stability or data integrity (Par. 0414-0416 Bobak discloses identifying changes to data and categorizing the changes based upon which recovery segment the change effects. The categorized change affecting one type of resource is seen as breaking, the categorized change effecting another type of resource is seen as non-breaking);
the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings (Par. 0429 Bobak discloses the changes will cause a disruption to the environment, in the prepared condition for resources, and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goal. The entity relationships mappings are seen as the prepared condition for resources and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goals);
or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations
Barsness and Bobak are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the data graph of Barsness to include the monitoring changes of Bobak, to allow for accessing content in order to respond to system failures more efficiently (Par. 0002-0004 Bobak).
As to claim 9 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the graph).
As to claim 10 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the tuples within the graph. Par. 0022 Barsness discloses the tuples have keys and other metadata).
As to claim 11 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 12 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0077 Barsness discloses the change may be a deletion of an element that will prevent processing. Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 13 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Barsness teaches further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance (Par. 0016 Barsness discloses allowing the user to make changes based upon past events).
As to claim 15 Barsness teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
continuously monitoring a data graph for one or more structural changes data warehouse entity relationships or schema definitions within a data warehouse, the structural changes comprising modifications to data warehouse table structures, schema configurations, or entity relationship mappings (Fig. 5 and Par. 0069 Barsness discloses monitoring a graph for state changes. Par. 0067 Barsness discloses corrective action for the changes is resetting the processing which includes changing a configuration of the processing);
Barsness teaches and executing one or more modifications to the data graph or the data warehouse to accommodate the one or more identified changes, wherein the one or more modifications are executed using an algorithm optimized to minimize disruption or enhance data processing efficiency (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
Barsness does not teach but Bobak teaches based on a detection of the one or more structural changes, categorizing each of the one or more structural changes as either breaking or non-breaking based on one or more predefined criteria pertaining data warehouse to stability or data integrity (Par. 0414-0416 Bobak discloses identifying changes to data and categorizing the changes based upon which recovery segment the change effects. The categorized change affecting one type of resource is seen as breaking, the categorized change effecting another type of resource is seen as non-breaking);
the breaking changes comprising structural modifications that disrupt entity relationship mappings (Par. 0429 Bobak discloses the changes will cause a disruption to the environment, in the prepared condition for resources, and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goal. The entity relationships mappings are seen as the prepared condition for resources and for the Business Resilence to meet its recovery time objective goals);
or introduce schema incompatibilities that impact downstream data processing operations
Barsness and Bobak are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the data graph of Barsness to include the monitoring changes of Bobak, to allow for accessing content in order to respond to system failures more efficiently (Par. 0002-0004 Bobak).
As to claim 16 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or changes impact a fundamental data structure of the data graph is altered (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the graph).
As to claim 17 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes an evaluation of an extent to which the one or more changes impact relationships between entities or primary keys used in database indexing (Par. 0065 Barsness discloses the changes affect the configuration of the tuples within the graph. Par. 0022 Barsness discloses the tuples have keys and other metadata).
As to claim 18 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes affect an accuracy, completeness, or reliability measure pertaining to data stored in the data warehouse (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 19 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Barsness teaches wherein the categorizing includes assessing an extent to which the one or more changes introduce a type mismatch, remove data validations, or alter data retrieval paths (Fig. 5 (512) and Par. 0077 Barsness discloses the change may be a deletion of an element that will prevent processing. Par. 0082 Barsness discloses taking corrective action to address processing optimization by splitting the data that needs to be processed).
As to claim 20 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Barsness teaches the operations further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on a collecting of historical data regarding one or more previous changes to the data graph and impacts of the one or more previous changes on system performance (Par. 0016 Barsness discloses allowing the user to make changes based upon past events).
8. Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0168748 (herein as ‘Barsness’), Bobak et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171730 (herein as ‘Bobak’) and further in view of Minisankar at al U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0365525 (herein as ‘Minisankar’).
As to claim 7 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
Barsness does not teach but Minisankar teaches the operations further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes (Par. 0084 and par. 0087 Minisankar discloses using a machine learning predictive model to prediction resolutions to computer faults).
Barsness and Minisankar are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, computer processing detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the graph changes of Barsness to include the machine learning model of Evans, to allow for accessing content in order to address computer system failures (Par. 0003 Minisankar).
As to claim 14 Barsness in combination with Bobak teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
Barsness does not teach but Minisankar teaches further comprising creating the optimized algorithm based on training of a machine-learning model on the historical data to identify patterns or predict outcomes associated with different types of the one or more changes (Par. 0084 and par. 0087 Minisankar discloses using a machine learning predictive model to prediction resolutions to computer faults).
Barsness and Minisankar are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, computer processing detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the graph changes of Barsness to include the machine learning model of Evans, to allow for accessing content in order to address computer system failures (Par. 0003 Minisankar).
Conclusion
10. 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 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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/J.A.M/ February 21, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159