DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a system that includes a processor, claims 2-16 are directed to a method, and claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1, 2, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
selecting from the first subset of database engines based on progress in enforcing data integrity of the application by: is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application, wherein the first characteristic comprises a percentage of tables currently defined within an application domain of the application; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
selecting a first database engine, from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
The above analysis applies to each independent claim as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1, 2, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
A system for fit-for-purpose database selection based on application characteristics and development timelines of applications currently under development, the system comprising: is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
one or more processors; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving an application for fitting to one of a plurality of database engines for use by the application across a cloud computing network after deployment of the application; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
receiving, via a first user input to a user interface, a database processing requirement for the application, wherein the database processing requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports real-time processing, batch processing, or mix processing; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
filtering the plurality of database engines based on the database processing requirement to generate a first subset of database engines that support real-time processing, batch processing, or mix processing; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
receiving, via a second user input to the user interface, an acceptance of the recommendation; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
formatting the application for support by the first database engine. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
The above analysis applies to each independent claim as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2B (Claims 1, 2, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
A system for fit-for-purpose database selection based on application characteristics and development timelines of applications currently under development, the system comprising: is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.0f(g).
one or more processors; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving an application for fitting to one of a plurality of database engines for use by the application across a cloud computing network after deployment of the application; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
receiving, via a first user input to a user interface, a database processing requirement for the application, wherein the database processing requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports real-time processing, batch processing, or mix processing; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
filtering the plurality of database engines based on the database processing requirement to generate a first subset of database engines that support real-time processing, batch processing, or mix processing; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic record keep as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);”
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in 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);”
receiving, via a second user input to the user interface, an acceptance of the recommendation; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
formatting the application for support by the first database engine. when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in 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);”
The above analysis applies to each independent claim as they contain similar limitations.
The dependent claims are also directed to abstract ideas as they depend on the independent claims. The dependent claims merely add steps of clarifying certain limitations such as the first characteristic or the filtering. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmse, Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0098023 (hereinafter Kirmse) in view of Hollifield et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0229456 (hereinafter Hollifield).
Regarding claim 1, Kirmse teaches:
A system for fit-for-purpose database selection based on application characteristics and development timelines of applications currently under development (Kirmse Paragraph [0017], Cloud-native applications are specifically developed to execute in a cloud environment. As a result, many cloud-native applications are designed according to a microservice architecture), the system comprising:
one or more processors (Kirmse Paragraph [0147], at least one processor programmed to perform operations); and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising (Kirmse Paragraph [0163], a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor):
receiving an application for fitting to one of a plurality of database engines for use by the application across a cloud computing network after deployment of the application (Kirmse Paragraph [0155], Example 9 is a method for managing a plugin at a cloud-implemented database management application, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one service executing at a cloud environment and from a first user);
receiving, via a first user input to a user interface (Kirmse Paragraph [0155], receiving, by at least one service executing at a cloud environment and from a first user), a database processing requirement for the application (Kirmse Paragraph [0155], receiving, by at least one service executing at a cloud environment and from a first user, a request to install a first plugin to a database management application executing at the cloud environment in at least one container), wherein the database processing requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports real-time processing, batch processing (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], As a result, changes to an on-premises application may be made in batches. In this way, a batch of multiple changes can be tested, de-bugged, and deployed at the same time), or mix processing;
filtering the plurality of database engines based on the database processing requirement to generate a first subset of database engines that support real-time processing, batch processing (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], This means that changes to one functionality of an on-premises application may require the re-testing of many different functionalities provided by the modified executable and/or library files, As a result, changes to an on-premises application may be made in batches. In this way, a batch of multiple changes can be tested, de-bugged, and deployed at the same time), or mix processing;
formatting the application for support by the first database engine (Kirmse Paragraph [0029], because plugins remain available, the cloud implementation of the on-premises application may maintain the flexibility of the on-premises application without fully re-factoring the application to a cloud native format).
Kirmse does not expressly disclose:
selecting from the first subset of database engines based on progress in enforcing data integrity of the application by:
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application, wherein the first characteristic comprises a percentage of tables currently defined within an application domain of the application;
determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic; and
selecting a first database engine, from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema;
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine;
receiving, via a second user input to the user interface, an acceptance of the recommendation; and
However, Hollifield teaches:
selecting from the first subset of database engines based on progress in enforcing data integrity of the application by (Hollifield Paragraph [0066], Once all columns to validate are assigned to a domain having validity and completeness criteria, the user can select (e.g., via hierarchical display 712 (FIG. 7)) a group of columns, tables, schema or sources to validate and cause the system to run the validation against all values in the selected group):
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature), wherein the first characteristic comprises a percentage of tables currently defined within an application domain of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria);
determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria); and
selecting a first database engine, from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema (Hollifield Paragraph [0066], Once all columns to validate are assigned to a domain having validity and completeness criteria, the user can select (e.g., via hierarchical display 712 (FIG. 7)) a group of columns, tables, schema or sources to validate and cause the system to run the validation against all values in the selected group);
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine (Hollifield Paragraph [0044], Data quality metrics (e.g., percentage of each column's values failing the validity criteria, percentage of each column's values failing the completeness criteria, etc.) can be computed from these counts and stored in the metadata repository. The user can review the data quality results in a display showing the data quality at the column, table, schema, and/or source level at step 306);
receiving, via a second user input to the user interface, an acceptance of the recommendation (Hollifield Paragraph [0051], FIG. 5 illustrates a GUI in which the user has selected a tab to enable defining criteria that a value must match to be considered as complete within the domain); and
The claimed invention and Hollifield are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield. Hollifield teaches the benefits of assessing the quality of column data by assigning a pre-defined domain to one or more columns of the data based on a validity condition for the domain (Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 2, Kirmse teaches:
A method for fit-for-purpose database selection based on application characteristics of applications currently under development, the method comprising (Kirmse Paragraph [0017], Cloud-native applications are specifically developed to execute in a cloud environment. As a result, many cloud-native applications are designed according to a microservice architecture):
receiving an application for fitting to one of a plurality of database engines based on a requirement for the application (Kirmse Paragraph [0155], Example 9 is a method for managing a plugin at a cloud-implemented database management application, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one service executing at a cloud environment and from a first user);
filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate a first subset of database engines (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], This means that changes to one functionality of an on-premises application may require the re-testing of many different functionalities provided by the modified executable and/or library files, As a result, changes to an on-premises application may be made in batches. In this way, a batch of multiple changes can be tested, de-bugged, and deployed at the same time);
Kirmse does not expressly disclose:
selecting from the first subset of database engines based on progress in enforcing data integrity of the application by:
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application;
determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic; and
selecting a first database engine, from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema; and
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine.
However, Hollifield teaches:
selecting from the first subset of database engines based on progress in enforcing data integrity of the application by (Hollifield Paragraph [0066], Once all columns to validate are assigned to a domain having validity and completeness criteria, the user can select (e.g., via hierarchical display 712 (FIG. 7)) a group of columns, tables, schema or sources to validate and cause the system to run the validation against all values in the selected group):
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature);
determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria); and
selecting a first database engine, from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema (Hollifield Paragraph [0066], Once all columns to validate are assigned to a domain having validity and completeness criteria, the user can select (e.g., via hierarchical display 712 (FIG. 7)) a group of columns, tables, schema or sources to validate and cause the system to run the validation against all values in the selected group); and
generating for display, on a user interface a recommendation for the first database engine (Hollifield Paragraph [0044], Data quality metrics (e.g., percentage of each column's values failing the validity criteria, percentage of each column's values failing the completeness criteria, etc.) can be computed from these counts and stored in the metadata repository. The user can review the data quality results in a display showing the data quality at the column, table, schema, and/or source level at step 306).
The claimed invention and Hollifield are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield. Hollifield teaches the benefits of assessing the quality of column data by assigning a pre-defined domain to one or more columns of the data based on a validity condition for the domain (Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature):
determining a percentage of tables currently defined within an application domain of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria); and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the percentage (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria).
Regarding claim 5, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature):
determining a percentage of constraints defined within an application domain of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0023], A check of domain validity (e.g., the percentage of values not matching the domain conditions) and a check of completeness (e.g., the percentage of values being incomplete) (shows constraints by checking the domain validity)); and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the percentage (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria).
Regarding claim 6, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature):
determining a percentage of fields populated within an application domain of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0044], Data quality metrics (e.g., percentage of each column's values failing the validity criteria, percentage of each column's values failing the completeness criteria, etc.) can be computed from these counts and stored in the metadata repository (shows percentage based on a column)); and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the percentage (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria).
Regarding claim 8, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises (Hollifield Paragraph [0058], The system may then be able to suggest domain validity criteria based on the characteristics of the domain signature):
determining a plurality of entities defined within an application domain of the application (Hollifield Paragraph [0021], For example, if a column contains credit card numbers, all values should match a particular format and checksum used for credit card numbers);
determining a number of entities of the plurality of entities that are currently defined (Hollifield Paragraph [0044], The processing engine subjects each distinct value of each column to all validity and completeness criteria of the associated domain and counts the number of violations); and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the number of entities of the plurality of entities that are currently defined (Hollifield Paragraph [0044], The processing engine subjects each distinct value of each column to all validity and completeness criteria of the associated domain and counts the number of violations).
Regarding claim 9, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], This means that changes to one functionality of an on-premises application may require the re-testing of many different functionalities provided by the modified executable and/or library files):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports real-time processing, batch processing (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], As a result, changes to an on-premises application may be made in batches. In this way, a batch of multiple changes can be tested, de-bugged, and deployed at the same time), or mix processing; and
determining that the first subset of database engines support real-time processing, batch processing (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], As a result, changes to an on-premises application may be made in batches. In this way, a batch of multiple changes can be tested, de-bugged, and deployed at the same time), or mix processing.
Regarding claim 12, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], This means that changes to one functionality of an on-premises application may require the re-testing of many different functionalities provided by the modified executable and/or library files):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine is cloud native (Kirmse Paragraph [0025], cloud-native application may not use plugins in the same way as an on-premises application. For example, because a cloud-native application may be arranged according to a microservices architecture); and
determining that the first subset of database engines is cloud native (Kirmse Paragraph [0025], cloud-native application may not use plugins in the same way as an on-premises application. For example, because a cloud-native application may be arranged according to a microservices architecture).
Regarding claim 14, Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Kirmse Paragraph [0015], This means that changes to one functionality of an on-premises application may require the re-testing of many different functionalities provided by the modified executable and/or library files):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a plugin access (Kirmse Paragraph [0030], FIG. 1 is a diagram showing one example of an arrangement 100 for providing plugin support to legacy on-premises applications executed in a cloud environment 102); and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the plugin access (Kirmse Paragraph [0030], FIG. 1 is a diagram showing one example of an arrangement 100 for providing plugin support to legacy on-premises applications executed in a cloud environment 102).
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (system, method, computer-readable medium). Claim 1 has a cited portion from the Kirmse reference that teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Isampalli et al., United States Patent No. 12,360,964 (hereinafter Isampalli).
Regarding claim 3, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein selecting the first database engine from the first subset of database engines, based on the percentage of completeness of the schema, further comprises (Hollifield Paragraph [0072], The percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema or source that are associated with validity and completeness criteria):
selecting the first database engine based on a scored corresponding to the first database engine (Hollifield Paragraph [0066], Once all columns to validate are assigned to a domain having validity and completeness criteria, the user can select (e.g., via hierarchical display 712 (FIG. 7)) a group of columns, tables, schema or sources to validate and cause the system to run the validation against all values in the selected group (Hollifield teaches the selecting and percent while Isampalli teaches the score)).
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
scoring each database engine of the first subset of database engines based on the percentage of completeness of the schema;
However, Isampalli teaches:
scoring each database engine of the first subset of database engines based on the percentage of completeness of the schema (Isampalli Column 15 Lines 29-35, After updating the API schema 145, the updated compliance score may include a match percentage of 100% for each of the parameters, elements, and definitions to indicate that the API schema 145 has achieved compliance with the standard schema model);
The claimed invention and Isampalli are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Isampalli to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Isampalli. Isampalli teaches improvements directed to a simplified process of achieving API compliance with an industry standard (Column 3 Lines 30-40).
Claim 18 is rejected in the same manner as claim 3 but is merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/computer-readable medium).
Claim(s) 7, 11, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole et al., United States Patent No. 10,331,657 (hereinafter Cole).
Regarding claim 7, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises:
determining a number of primary keys defined within an application domain of the application; and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the number.
However, Cole teaches:
wherein determining the first characteristic of a schema of the application further comprises (Cole Column 24 Lines 60-65, Each of the data stores of the materialization nodes may have a respective concrete schema specifying characteristics of the data objects on which transactions are to be managed using the journal):
determining a number of primary keys defined within an application domain of the application (Cole Column 10 Lines 19-25, Among other types of information regarding committed transactions, in some embodiments the performance analyzer may be able to identify which portions of the database (e.g., which sub-ranges of primary keys) are being updated most frequently over various time periods); and
determining a first characteristic of a schema of the application based on the number (Cole Column 24 Lines 60-65, Each of the data stores of the materialization nodes may have a respective concrete schema specifying characteristics of the data objects on which transactions are to be managed using the journal).
The claimed invention and Cole are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole. Cole teaches improved performance of the multi-data-store through workload configuration changes and analysis (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises:
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined read rate; and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined read rate.
However, Cole teaches:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Cole Column 10 Lines 35-40, the performance analyzer 180 may also collect other metrics regarding the operations of the journal manager 101, such as the rates at which transaction requests are received/processed, the rates at which journal entries are being read for materialization):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined read rate (Cole Column 10 Lines 35-40, the performance analyzer 180 may also collect other metrics regarding the operations of the journal manager 101, such as the rates at which transaction requests are received/processed, the rates at which journal entries are being read for materialization (Hollifield teaches predetermined information in Paragraph 63)); and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined read rate (Cole Column 10 Lines 35-40, the performance analyzer 180 may also collect other metrics regarding the operations of the journal manager 101, such as the rates at which transaction requests are received/processed, the rates at which journal entries are being read for materialization (Hollifield teaches predetermined information in Paragraph 63)).
The claimed invention and Cole are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole. Cole teaches improved performance of the multi-data-store through workload configuration changes and analysis (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises:
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined transaction per second calculation; and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined transaction per second calculation.
However, Cole teaches:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Cole Column 22 Lines 30-40, the number of transaction requests processed per second by the journal manager of a database indicated in message area 1003 is displayed in the leftmost column):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined transaction per second calculation (Cole Column 22 Lines 30-40, the number of transaction requests processed per second by the journal manager of a database indicated in message area 1003 is displayed in the leftmost column); and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined transaction per second calculation (Cole Column 22 Lines 30-40, the number of transaction requests processed per second by the journal manager of a database indicated in message area 1003 is displayed in the leftmost column).
The claimed invention and Cole are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole. Cole teaches improved performance of the multi-data-store through workload configuration changes and analysis (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises:
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined write rate; and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined write rate.
However, Cole teaches:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Cole Column Lines , performance analyzer may also collect metrics of the journal manager's performance—e.g., the rate at which transaction requests have been received/processed, the rate at which writes are propagated (Hollifield teaches predetermined information in Paragraph 63)):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a predetermined write rate (Cole Column Lines , performance analyzer may also collect metrics of the journal manager's performance—e.g., the rate at which transaction requests have been received/processed, the rate at which writes are propagated (Hollifield teaches predetermined information in Paragraph 63)); and
determining that the first subset of database engines support the predetermined write rate (Cole Column Lines , performance analyzer may also collect metrics of the journal manager's performance—e.g., the rate at which transaction requests have been received/processed, the rate at which writes are propagated (Hollifield teaches predetermined information in Paragraph 63)).
The claimed invention and Cole are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Cole. Cole teaches improved performance of the multi-data-store through workload configuration changes and analysis (Claim 1).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Vadlamani et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0089224 (hereinafter Vadlamani).
Regarding claim 10, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises:
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a non-structured data model; and
determining that the first subset of database engines supports the non-structured data model.
However, Vadlamani teaches:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the values data store may be run by a non-structured query language (SQL) (NoSQL) or non-relational key value database which may be a similar database to Google™ Bigtable™ database):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine supports a non-structured data model (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the values data store may be run by a non-structured query language (SQL) (NoSQL) or non-relational key value database which may be a similar database to Google™ Bigtable™ database); and
determining that the first subset of database engines supports the non-structured data model (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the values data store may be run by a non-structured query language (SQL) (NoSQL) or non-relational key value database which may be a similar database to Google™ Bigtable™ database).
The claimed invention and Vadlamani are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Vadlamani to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Vadlamani. Vadlamani teaches using omnichannel messaging to improve messaging services and computing platforms (Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 15, Kirmse in view of Hollifield teaches parent claim 2.
Kirmse in view of Hollifield does not expressly disclose:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises:
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine is open source; and
determining that the first subset of database engines is open source.
However, Vadlamani teaches:
wherein filtering the plurality of database engines based on the requirement to generate the first subset of database engines further comprises (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the definitions and properties data of the multi-tenant data stores 552 may be located in a relational-type database such as relational database management system (e.g., structured query language database such as open source MySQL™ database)):
determining that the requirement is based on whether a potential database engine is open source (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the definitions and properties data of the multi-tenant data stores 552 may be located in a relational-type database such as relational database management system (e.g., structured query language database such as open source MySQL™ database)); and
determining that the first subset of database engines is open source (Vadlamani Paragraph [0119], the definitions and properties data of the multi-tenant data stores 552 may be located in a relational-type database such as relational database management system (e.g., structured query language database such as open source MySQL™ database)).
The claimed invention and Vadlamani are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Vadlamani to have combined Kirmse in view of Hollifield and Vadlamani. Vadlamani teaches using omnichannel messaging to improve messaging services and computing platforms (Paragraph 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A detailed explanation is provided below.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose “a percentage of completeness of the schema of the application”, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to specification paragraph 87 show further detail on how the percentage of completeness of the schema is determined. These elements are not claimed, the claim merely requires that a percentage of completeness is determined and does not provide further detail on how it is performed. Hollifield teaches a percentage of coverage represents the percentage of columns in a table, schema, or source that are associated with validity (Paragraph 72). This shows that Hollifield does teach a percentage of completeness of a schema. Applicant further argues that Hollifield teaches completeness for a schema of a dataset and not an application. The limitation of “determining a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic” does not state that it is for an application. Kirmse teaches the application (Paragraph 155). Applicant further argues that Hollifield is silent to selecting a database engine. Kirmse teaches filtering the database engines (Paragraph 15). Therefore, the combination of Kirmse and Hollifield disclose these limitations.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the claims are tied to a practical application, the Examiner disagrees. The claims are currently do not provide enough detail on how exactly the claims are solving this technical problem. The claims merely stated that a percentage of completeness of the schema based on the first characteristic is determined but does not provide the detail on how that determination is made. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Niu et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0301917 (hereinafter Niu). Niu teaches selecting the big-data database service (Paragraph 319). This shows that Niu is analogous art as both Niu and the claimed invention are directed to selecting a database engine.
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 DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
