DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is in reply to the responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/07/2024.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/24/2025 and 10/29/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 16-19 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 1-15 are directed to a computing system (i.e., machine), and claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… maintain a plurality of data domains in which the data assets are stored, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains; maintain the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units; and track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations for managing data assets of an enterprise such as a bank – See Specification [0003]). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a memory”, “a processing system of an enterprise”, and “one or more processors implemented in circuitry”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processing system of an enterprise”, and “one or more processors implemented in circuitry” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 16:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 16 recites the at least following limitations of “… maintaining a plurality of data domains storing a plurality of data assets, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains maintaining the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units; and tracking defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations for managing data assets of an enterprise such as a bank – See Specification [0003]). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 16 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computing system”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computing system” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 20:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 20 recites the at least following limitations of “… maintain a plurality of data domains storing a plurality of data assets, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains; maintain the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units; and track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations for managing data assets of an enterprise such as a bank – See Specification [0003]). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 20 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processing system” and “a computing system of an enterprise”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processing system” and “a computing system of an enterprise” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine one of the defects of the data in one of the plurality of data domains; and send a report representing the one of the defects to the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 3: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine one of the defects of the data in one of the plurality of data domains; and send a report representing the one of the defects to the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 4: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive a new data asset; and send a request to a user of the enterprise to map the new data asset to one of the plurality of data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 5: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 4. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: track an amount of time before the new data asset is mapped to one of the plurality of data domains; and when the amount of time exceeds a configured threshold, output an alert indicating that the amount of time has exceeded the configured threshold without the new data asset having been mapped to one of the plurality of data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 6: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive data defining a new data domain; and maintain the new data domain as one of the plurality of data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 7: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 6. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is configured to authenticate a user who provides the data defining the new data domain as a user having a role that permits addition of new data domains amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 8: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine a metadata element representative of one or more of the data assets; and calculate an overall data quality score for the metadata element, wherein to calculate the overall data quality score, the processing system is configured to: determine a compliance goal associated with the metadata element; determine one or more actions needed to satisfy the compliance goal; determine a status for each action of the one or more actions, wherein the status for the action indicates whether the action has been successfully completed, is in progress, or has failed; and calculate the overall data quality score according to the statuses for the one or more actions amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 9: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 8. Simply stating that wherein to calculate the overall data quality score, the processing system is configured to calculate the overall data quality score according to one or more of timeliness of data for the data assets, completeness of the data for the data assets, consistency of the data for the data assets, user feedback for the data for the data assets, or consumption of the data for the data assets amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 10: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 8. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine a compliance policy; determine a degree to which at least a portion of the data assets complies with the compliance policy; when the degree to which the at least portion of the data assets does not fully comply with the compliance policy: determine use cases needed to further become compliant with the compliance policy; determine data defects detracting from compliance with the compliance policy; and determine controls needed to cause the at least portion of the data assets to comply with the compliance policy amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 11: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to obtain mapping data that maps at least one of the data use cases to at least one of the data sources amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 12: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein to obtain the mapping data that maps the at least one of the data use cases to the at least one of the data sources, the processing system is further configured to obtain mapping data that maps each of the data use cases to one or more of the data sources amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 13: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to generate a data source dictionary and a link between the at least one of the data use cases and the at least one of the data sources amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 14: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive a request to perform the at least one of the data use cases using data assets of a requested one of the one or more data sources; and determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 15: simply provides further definition to “the processing system” recited in dependent claim 14. Simply stating that wherein the processing system is further configured to log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the processing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 17: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., determining one of the defects of the data in one of the plurality of data domains; sending a report representing the one of the defects to the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains; and receiving remediation data for one of the defects in one of the plurality of data domains from the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 16. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 18: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., determining a metadata element representative of one or more of the data assets; and calculating an overall data quality score for the metadata element, including: determining a compliance goal associated with the metadata element; determining one or more actions needed to satisfy the compliance goal; determining a status for each action of the one or more actions, wherein the status for the action indicates whether the action has been successfully completed, is in progress, or has failed; and calculating the overall data quality score according to the statuses for the one or more actions), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 16. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 19: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., obtaining mapping data that maps at least one of the data use cases to at least one of the data sources; receiving a request to perform the at least one of the data use cases using data assets of a requested one of the one or more data sources; and determining whether the mapping data maps the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 16. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided an explicit definition for computer storage media. Computer storage media is open-ended per the specification, and can therefore broadly include signals.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schnegelberger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,471,594), hereinafter, “Schnegelberger”.
Claim 1 –
Schnegelberger disclose:
a computing system, comprising: a memory storing a plurality of data assets; and a processing system of an enterprise, the processing system comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry, the processing system being configured to (Schnegelberger, [Column 1, Lines 30-34] “an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor”, see also Figure 1):
maintain a plurality of data domains in which the data assets are stored, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 5-13] “An automated system for defect remediation 100 may be associated with one or more serviced systems 102 (e.g., storage system(s), back-up storage devices, servers, Data Domain deduplication storage systems, client(s), or any computer-related system(s)). System 100 may be associated with a defect tracking system (e.g., communicate with a defect tracking system via network 104)”, see also Figure 1);
maintain the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 58-65] “defect information may be received (e.g., from an engineer, programmer, or other user) at system 100. A defect may include a bug (e.g., an undesirable condition related to a system), error, or other condition associated with a system that causes the system to deviate from standard/optimal operation. Defect information may include any information associated with a defect (e.g., information describing a defect)”, see also Figure 1); and
track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 65-67, Column 3, Lines 1-3] “Defect information may include, for example, defect symptom data, defect signature(s), system-related information (e.g., software or hardware version, domain and component associated with system), defect severity, defect remediation information, and/or other information associated with a defect”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 2 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine one of the defects of the data in one of the plurality of data domains; and send a report representing the one of the defects to the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 13-18] “user(s) associated with a defect may be determined based on a domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user. A domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user may, for example, be stored in database of user information 140.”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 3 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to receive remediation data for one of the defects in one of the plurality of data domains from the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 5-13] “An automated system for defect remediation 100 may be associated with one or more serviced systems 102 (e.g., storage system(s), back-up storage devices, servers, Data Domain deduplication storage systems, client(s), or any computer-related system(s)). System 100 may be associated with a defect tracking system (e.g., communicate with a defect tracking system via network 104)”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 4 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive a new data asset; and send a request to a user of the enterprise to map the new data asset to one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 13-18] “user(s) associated with a defect may be determined based on a domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user. A domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user may, for example, be stored in database of user information 140.”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 5 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 4, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: track an amount of time before the new data asset is mapped to one of the plurality of data domains; and when the amount of time exceeds a configured threshold, output an alert indicating that the amount of time has exceeded the configured threshold without the new data asset having been mapped to one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 65-67, Column 3, Lines 1-3] “Defect information may include, for example, defect symptom data, defect signature(s), system-related information (e.g., software or hardware version, domain and component associated with system), defect severity, defect remediation information, and/or other information associated with a defect”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 6 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive data defining a new data domain; and maintain the new data domain as one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 13-18] “user(s) associated with a defect may be determined based on a domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user. A domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user may, for example, be stored in database of user information 140.”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 7 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 6, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is configured to authenticate a user who provides the data defining the new data domain as a user having a role that permits addition of new data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 13-18] “user(s) associated with a defect may be determined based on a domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user. A domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user may, for example, be stored in database of user information 140.”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 8 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine a metadata element representative of one or more of the data assets; and calculate an overall data quality score for the metadata element, wherein to calculate the overall data quality score, the processing system is configured to: determine a compliance goal associated with the metadata element; determine one or more actions needed to satisfy the compliance goal; determine a status for each action of the one or more actions, wherein the status for the action indicates whether the action has been successfully completed, is in progress, or has failed; and calculate the overall data quality score according to the statuses for the one or more actions (Schnegelberger, [Column 7, Lines 46-58] “the one or more systems may be determined based at least in part on a defect-based query against diagnostic data associated with at least one system in a group of systems. Systems associated with a defect may include systems in which the defect is present. In some embodiments, a defect-based query may be performed against diagnostic records associated with each system in a group of systems to determine which systems have the defect. For example, a defect-based query against system diagnostic data associated with a system that generates a positive result (e.g., a match, correlation, hit) may indicate the presence of a defect in the system.”, see also Figure 3).
Claim 9 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 8, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein to calculate the overall data quality score, the processing system is configured to calculate the overall data quality score according to one or more of timeliness of data for the data assets, completeness of the data for the data assets, consistency of the data for the data assets, user feedback for the data for the data assets, or consumption of the data for the data assets (Schnegelberger, [Column 7, Lines 46-58] “the one or more systems may be determined based at least in part on a defect-based query against diagnostic data associated with at least one system in a group of systems. Systems associated with a defect may include systems in which the defect is present. In some embodiments, a defect-based query may be performed against diagnostic records associated with each system in a group of systems to determine which systems have the defect. For example, a defect-based query against system diagnostic data associated with a system that generates a positive result (e.g., a match, correlation, hit) may indicate the presence of a defect in the system.”, see also Figure 3).
Claim 10 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 8, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: determine a compliance policy; determine a degree to which at least a portion of the data assets complies with the compliance policy; when the degree to which the at least portion of the data assets does not fully comply with the compliance policy: determine use cases needed to further become compliant with the compliance policy; determine data defects detracting from compliance with the compliance policy; and determine controls needed to cause the at least portion of the data assets to comply with the compliance policy (Schnegelberger, [Column 7, Lines 46-58] “the one or more systems may be determined based at least in part on a defect-based query against diagnostic data associated with at least one system in a group of systems. Systems associated with a defect may include systems in which the defect is present. In some embodiments, a defect-based query may be performed against diagnostic records associated with each system in a group of systems to determine which systems have the defect. For example, a defect-based query against system diagnostic data associated with a system that generates a positive result (e.g., a match, correlation, hit) may indicate the presence of a defect in the system.”, see also Figure 3).
Claim 11 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 1, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to obtain mapping data that maps at least one of the data use cases to at least one of the data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records.”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 12 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 11, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein to obtain the mapping data that maps the at least one of the data use cases to the at least one of the data sources, the processing system is further configured to obtain mapping data that maps each of the data use cases to one or more of the data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records.”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 13 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 11, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to generate a data source dictionary and a link between the at least one of the data use cases and the at least one of the data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39, Column 7, Lines 10-12] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records … the remediation package may include information indicating where remediation action information may be obtained (e.g., a link to a document including remediation actions).”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 14 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 11, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive a request to perform the at least one of the data use cases using data assets of a requested one of the one or more data sources; and determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records.”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 15 –
Schnegelberger disclose the computing system of claim 14, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
wherein the processing system is further configured to log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records.”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 16 –
Schnegelberger disclose:
a method of managing data assets of a computing system of an enterprise, the method comprising (Schnegelberger, [Column 1, Lines 30-34] “an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor”, see also Figure 1):
maintaining a plurality of data domains storing a plurality of data assets, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 5-13] “An automated system for defect remediation 100 may be associated with one or more serviced systems 102 (e.g., storage system(s), back-up storage devices, servers, Data Domain deduplication storage systems, client(s), or any computer-related system(s)). System 100 may be associated with a defect tracking system (e.g., communicate with a defect tracking system via network 104)”, see also Figure 1);
maintaining the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 58-65] “defect information may be received (e.g., from an engineer, programmer, or other user) at system 100. A defect may include a bug (e.g., an undesirable condition related to a system), error, or other condition associated with a system that causes the system to deviate from standard/optimal operation. Defect information may include any information associated with a defect (e.g., information describing a defect)”, see also Figure 1); and
tracking defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 65-67, Column 3, Lines 1-3] “Defect information may include, for example, defect symptom data, defect signature(s), system-related information (e.g., software or hardware version, domain and component associated with system), defect severity, defect remediation information, and/or other information associated with a defect”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 17 –
Schnegelberger disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
further comprising: determining one of the defects of the data in one of the plurality of data domains; sending a report representing the one of the defects to the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains; and receiving remediation data for one of the defects in one of the plurality of data domains from the executive that manages the one of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 13-18, Column 2, Lines 5-13] “user(s) associated with a defect may be determined based on a domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user. A domain and component 142 and/or other information associated with a user may, for example, be stored in database of user information 140 … An automated system for defect remediation 100 may be associated with one or more serviced systems 102 (e.g., storage system(s), back-up storage devices, servers, Data Domain deduplication storage systems, client(s), or any computer-related system(s)). System 100 may be associated with a defect tracking system (e.g., communicate with a defect tracking system via network 104).”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 18 –
Schnegelberger disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
further comprising: determining a metadata element representative of one or more of the data assets; and calculating an overall data quality score for the metadata element, including: determining a compliance goal associated with the metadata element; determining one or more actions needed to satisfy the compliance goal; determining a status for each action of the one or more actions, wherein the status for the action indicates whether the action has been successfully completed, is in progress, or has failed; and calculating the overall data quality score according to the statuses for the one or more actions (Schnegelberger, [Column 7, Lines 46-58] “the one or more systems may be determined based at least in part on a defect-based query against diagnostic data associated with at least one system in a group of systems. Systems associated with a defect may include systems in which the defect is present. In some embodiments, a defect-based query may be performed against diagnostic records associated with each system in a group of systems to determine which systems have the defect. For example, a defect-based query against system diagnostic data associated with a system that generates a positive result (e.g., a match, correlation, hit) may indicate the presence of a defect in the system.”, see also Figure 3).
Claim 19 –
Schnegelberger disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above.
Schnegelberger further disclose:
further comprising: obtaining mapping data that maps at least one of the data use cases to at least one of the data sources; receiving a request to perform the at least one of the data use cases using data assets of a requested one of the one or more data sources; and determining whether the mapping data maps the at least one of the data use cases to the requested one of the one or more data sources (Schnegelberger, [Column 6, Lines 37-39] “a defect may be mapped to remediation actions based at least in part on a defect-based query against structured remediation action records.”, see also Figure 2).
Claim 20 –
Schnegelberger disclose:
a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause a processing system of a computing system of an enterprise to (Schnegelberger, [Column 1, Lines 30-34] “an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor”, see also Figure 1):
maintain a plurality of data domains storing a plurality of data assets, each of the data domains being managed by an executive of the enterprise, and each of the domains having one or more subdomains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 5-13] “An automated system for defect remediation 100 may be associated with one or more serviced systems 102 (e.g., storage system(s), back-up storage devices, servers, Data Domain deduplication storage systems, client(s), or any computer-related system(s)). System 100 may be associated with a defect tracking system (e.g., communicate with a defect tracking system via network 104)”, see also Figure 1);
maintain the one or more subdomains of each of the plurality of data domains, each of the plurality of data domains being associated with one or more data use cases, one or more data sources, and one or more risk accessible units (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 58-65] “defect information may be received (e.g., from an engineer, programmer, or other user) at system 100. A defect may include a bug (e.g., an undesirable condition related to a system), error, or other condition associated with a system that causes the system to deviate from standard/optimal operation. Defect information may include any information associated with a defect (e.g., information describing a defect)”, see also Figure 1); and
track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains (Schnegelberger, [Column 2, Lines 65-67, Column 3, Lines 1-3] “Defect information may include, for example, defect symptom data, defect signature(s), system-related information (e.g., software or hardware version, domain and component associated with system), defect severity, defect remediation information, and/or other information associated with a defect”, see also Figure 1).
Relevant Prior Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hall et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0113898) teach systems and methods for assessing data quality.
Crabtree et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0008173) teach system and method for detection and mitigation of data source compromises in adversarial information environments.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696