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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 04/21/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/10/2026 and 04/21/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 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.
6. 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 16-18 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 1-10, 12-13 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, each of the domains having one or more subdomains, and … track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains; 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; obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced …; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source.” 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”, “one or more processors implemented in circuitry”, “at least one platform”, and “vendor agnostic application programming interface”. 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”, “one or more processors implemented in circuitry”, “at least one platform”, and “vendor agnostic application programming interface” 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, and wherein defects of the data assets are tracked in each of the plurality of data domains; 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; obtaining mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced …; receiving a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determining whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and logging a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source.” 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”, “at least one platform” and “vendor agnostic application programming interface”. 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”, “at least one platform” and “vendor agnostic application programming interface” 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, and wherein the instructions further cause the processing system to track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains; 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; obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced …; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source.” 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”, “a computing system of an enterprise”, “at least one platform”, and “vendor agnostic application programming interface”. 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”, “a computing system of an enterprise”, “at least one platform”, and “vendor agnostic application programming interface” 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 2-10, 12-13 and 17-18 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 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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnegelberger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,471,594), hereinafter, “Schnegelberger”, in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 11,654,946), hereinafter, “Miller”.
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, each of the domains having one or more subdomains, and wherein the processing system is configured to track defects of the data assets in each 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);
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);
Schnegelberger do not explicitly disclose:
[[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]]
Miller discloses [[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]] (See at least Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9, “the data collection system 402 can include a CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, and manual defect collection module 320. The CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, manual defect collection module 320 can implement one or more algorithms to connect to a network to communicate with a client, ultimately to facilitate railroad asset inspection and communicate data related to an inspection frequency for a segment of track”, see also Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schnegelberger to include the mapping and logging of a data defect as taught by Miller, in order to obtain a data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources (see Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9).
Claim 2 –
Schnegelberger/Miller 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/Miller r 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/Miller 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/Miller 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/Miller 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/Miller 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/Miller 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/Miller 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/Miller 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 12 –
Schnegelberger/Miller 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/Miller 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 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 subdomains, and wherein defects of the data assets are tracked in each 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);
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);
Schnegelberger do not explicitly disclose:
[[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]]
Miller discloses [[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]] (See at least Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9, “the data collection system 402 can include a CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, and manual defect collection module 320. The CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, manual defect collection module 320 can implement one or more algorithms to connect to a network to communicate with a client, ultimately to facilitate railroad asset inspection and communicate data related to an inspection frequency for a segment of track”, see also Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schnegelberger to include the mapping and logging of a data defect as taught by Miller, in order to obtain a data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources (see Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9).
Claim 17 –
Schnegelberger/Miller 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/Miller 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 20 –
Schnegelberger/Miller disclose:
a non-transitory 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 subdomains, and wherein the instructions further cause the processing system to track defects of the data assets in each 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);
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);
Schnegelberger do not explicitly disclose:
[[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]]
Miller discloses [[obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source]] (See at least Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9, “the data collection system 402 can include a CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, and manual defect collection module 320. The CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, manual defect collection module 320 can implement one or more algorithms to connect to a network to communicate with a client, ultimately to facilitate railroad asset inspection and communicate data related to an inspection frequency for a segment of track”, see also Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schnegelberger to include the mapping and logging of a data defect as taught by Miller, in order to obtain a data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources (see Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
11. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that the independent rejection of claim 20, Applicant has amended claim 20 to explicitly recite a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium." Based on this clarifying amendment, the claim is expressly limited to statutory subject matter and no longer covers transitory propagating signals. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner hereby withdraws the 101 rejections of amended claim 20 with respect to statutory subject matter and no longer covers transitory propagating signals.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter under the two-step Alice/Mayo framework. Without conceding to the Office Action's assertion, Applicant has amended the claims. Amended claim 1 recites, inter a/ia, "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, each of the domains having one or more subdomains, and wherein the processing system is configured to track defects of the data assets in each of the plurality of data domains.., the amended claims recite obtaining mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case and at least one data source, in which the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface (API).Thus, Applicant submits the claims do not merely describe an economic practice or a method of organizing human activity that can be performed in the human mind. Rather, the claims recite a programmatic governance mechanism enforced at the API level to prevent unauthorized data consumption and to strictly enforce data linkages across a unified data catalog, thereby improving the data ingestion, integration, and defect tracking capabilities of the data catalog and enterprise computing system itself. Additionally, by programmatically intercepting requests and validating them against specific mapping data before logging system-level defects, the claimed invention provides a technological solution to the technological problem of enforcing data lineage and compliance across disparate enterprise platforms. Therefore, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent-eligible under Step 2A. Furthermore, even if the claims were determined to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, which Applicant does not acquiesce, the claims are still patent-eligible under Step 2B because they recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea itself. The ordered combination of elements in the amended claims provides an unconventional technical solution to enterprise data management. Applicant' specification explicitly describes the technical benefit of the automated linkage, API enforcement, and defect logging architecture. Applicant's specification as filed describes, for example: In some examples, the computing system uses identifying information from the one or more data sources to create a data linkage between one of the data sources… As such, creating automatic data linkages provides a more efficient and organized means of ingesting large amounts of data. The claimed features provide a specific technological solution to the technical problem of data misalignment, incompatible formatting, and unauthorized data consumption across disparate platforms in massive enterprise architectures. By utilizing platform and vendor agnostic APIs to actively enforce data linkages, and by actively intercepting execution requests to programmatically validate the requested data source against the automatically created mapping data, the claimed invention actively prevents the propagation of data defects … Therefore, Applicant submits that because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and alternatively recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, the claims satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-5).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue, 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]). In addition, amended independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue include additional elements of “a memory”, “a processing system of an enterprise”, “one or more processors implemented in circuitry”, “at least one platform”, and “vendor agnostic application programming interface”. 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). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 in the section above.
12. 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schnegelberger, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 6-7).
Examiner notes that the new prior art Miller teaches the amended claim limitations of independent claims 1, 16, and 20 “obtain mapping data that automatically creates at least one data linkage between at least one data use case from the one or more data use cases and at least one data source from the one or more data sources, wherein the at least one data linkage is enforced by at least one platform and vendor agnostic application programming interface; receive a request to perform the at least one data use case using data assets of a requested data source from the one or more data sources; determine whether the mapping data maps the at least one data use case to the requested data source; and log a data defect when the mapping data does not map the at least one data use cases to the requested data source” as in (See at least Miller, Column 15, Lines 61-67; Column 16, Lines 1-9, “the data collection system 402 can include a CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, and manual defect collection module 320. The CSP data collection module 308, MGT data collection module 310, precipitation data collection module 312, geometry car tag collection module 314, BFI data collection module 316, slow order data collection module 318, manual defect collection module 320 can implement one or more algorithms to connect to a network to communicate with a client, ultimately to facilitate railroad asset inspection and communicate data related to an inspection frequency for a segment of track”, see also Figure 3). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 of amended claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
13. 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
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights