DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final Office Action in response to the present US application number 18/940562, filed on 11/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, with claims 1, 11 and 20 being independent.
Note: Claim 20 recites “A computer-readable storage medium” is defined in Specification paragraph [0213] is limited to statutory subject matter. As such, rejections on statutory basic does not deem necessary. However, Examiner suggests to amend the term as follows: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/24/2025 is in comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea for managing data. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A computing system … “; therefore, the claim is a machine. Claim 11 recites “A method …”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore are processes. Claim 20 recites “A computer-readable storage medium…” therefore, the claim is a manufacture.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite limitations of:
process(ing) (a mental step that using generic computer component) one or more layers of a business intelligence stack to determine access events by system accounts to the data assets;
generat(ing) (a mental step that using generic computer component) data summarizing uses of the data assets according to the access events; and
output(ting) (insignificant extra-solution activity) report data representing the data summarizing the uses of the data assets.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: process(ing) …, generat(ing) …; are processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is , other than reciting: a memory, one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium; are computer components; nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitation: output(ting) …; the limitation is mere generic transmission and presentation data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, these additional limitations are recited as being performed by a memory, one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation: output(ting) …; is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) transmission and presentation data, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element performing by a memory, one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium; is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Since, claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to abstract ideas; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19
The limitations as recited in claims 2-10 and 12-19 are simply describe the concepts for managing data. The claims do not include additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to abstract ideas and are not patent eligible. Analysis of the dependent claims are shown below.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation, wherein the layers of the business intelligence stack include one or more of a data sources layer, a data warehouse layer, a data aggregation layer, or a reporting layer; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitations, wherein the data summarizing the uses of the data assets comprises business intelligence stack data; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), and wherein the processing system is configured to execute a user interface module configured to receive user queries of the business intelligence stack data and to generate the report data in response to the user queries; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting and analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitations, wherein the data summarizing the uses of the data assets comprises business intelligence stack data, and wherein the processing system is configured to execute a user interface module configured to generate the report data to include data indicative of end user representations of the uses of the data assets according to the business intelligence stack data; the limitations are a processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitation, wherein the end user representations include one or more of reports, models, or analytics; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitations, wherein the report data includes, for each of the end user representations, one or more of a name for the end user representation, a description of the end user representation, an owner of the end user representation, a subject matter expert associated with the end user representation, or data representing one or more data elements used in the end user representation; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitation, wherein the access events include one or more of queries of the data assets, aggregations of the data assets, virtualizations of the data assets, or reports of the data assets; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitations, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
receive a request for a new end user representation based on the data assets; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
determine whether data for the new end user representation has previously been generated according to the data summarizing the uses of the data assets; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
when the data for the new end user representation has previously been generated, generate a response to the request indicating that the data for the new end user representation has previously been generated; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 9 recites the limitation, wherein the processing system is further configured to store the data summarizing the uses of the data assets along with data management data for the data assets; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic storing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claim 10 recites the limitations, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
receive a request for data from a user;
determine a set of possible data assets of the data assets that may be used to satisfy the request; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
rate each possible data asset of the set of possible data assets according to a likelihood of satisfying the request and overall health scores for the possible data assets; the limitation is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
provide the set of possible data assets and the ratings to the user; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic transmission and presentation data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 12-19 recite A method, comprising steps are similar to subject matter of claims 2-8 and 10. Therefore, claims 12-19 are rejected by the same reasons as claims 2-8 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu et al., US 2024/0004891 (hereinafter Basu), and further in view of Joa et al., US 2012/0254053 (hereinafter Joa).
Regarding claim 1, Basu discloses, A computing system comprising:
a memory storing a plurality of data assets (e.g. the memory 208 (108, FIG. 1), Basu: [0029], Figs. 1-2); and
a processing system of an enterprise, the processing system comprising one or more processors (e.g. the processor 206 (106, FIG. 1), Basu: [0029], Figs. 1-2) implemented in circuitry, the processing system being configured to:
process one or more layers of a business intelligence stack to determine access events by system accounts to the data assets (e.g. the user interface generation engine is configured to render data assets in the form of one or more visualization types [as one or more layers of a business intelligence stack] associated with different Business Intelligence (BI) tools based on a pre-defined set of rules. The GUI renders a unified catalog of multiple analytical assets for visualization and consumption by the users via a single self-service data interface provided by the data asset rendering unit. The analytical assets include, but are not limited to, data sets, data reports, data insights, dashboards, and data models [as access events] . The search is carried out for at least, but not limited to, data and asset determination, data insights generation and data insights recommendations, Basu: [0007], [0032]-[0033]);
Basu does not directly or explicitly disclose:
generate data summarizing uses of the data assets according to the access events; and
output report data representing the data summarizing the uses of the data assets.
Joa teaches:
generate data summarizing uses of the data assets according to the access events (e.g. a credit card call center may capture calls for customers calling an 800 number [as access events]. Data marts 323 may comprise a list of customers who were identified by the line-of-business analysts to be mass affluent. This pre-defined list of customers may be linked to data warehouse 322 based on an analyst's log-in credentials (which determines access level to the data in data warehouse 322, including the permissible data elements in data warehouse 322). From the list for data marts 323, the analyst may be able to extract variables from data warehouse 322 that may help generate a defined set of reports [as generate data summarizing uses of the data assets] (for example, assets under management (AUM), customers who are homeowners, households with children, number of calls in the last month, and the like), Joa: [0070] and Fig. 3); and
output report data representing the data summarizing the uses of the data assets (e.g. The analyzed data from analytics subsystem 303 may then be presented [as output report] to a user by visualization subsystem 304 as exemplified by the screenshots in FIGS. 7-12. With some embodiments, visualization subsystem 304 supports presentation capabilities 340 including dashboards, reporting, drill down searches, customization collaboration, and line of business (LOB) commentary, Joa: [0073] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A system and method for generating an improved user interface for data analytics as disclosed by Basu to include A unified view of data for different organizations of a business as taught by Joa to provide the data in a timelier basis.
Regarding claim 2, Joa further teaches, wherein the layers of the business intelligence stack include one or more of a data sources layer, a data warehouse layer, a data aggregation layer, or a reporting layer
(e.g. The data from the data warehouse may be then used for reporting. A data warehouse may support its functions in three layers: staging, integration, and access, Joa: [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A system and method for generating an improved user interface for data analytics as disclosed by Basu to include A unified view of data for different organizations of a business as taught by Joa to provide the data in a timelier basis.
Regarding claim 3, Basu discloses, wherein the data summarizing the uses of the data assets comprises business intelligence stack data, and wherein the processing system is configured to execute a user interface module configured to receive user queries of the business intelligence stack data and to generate the report data in response to the user queries (e.g. The user interface generation engine is configured to perform a first type of data analytics action based on a user request. The user interface generation engine is configured to fetch data insights based on the first type of data analytics action for rendering one or more data assets as one or more result sets. Further, the user interface generation engine is configured to provide a sharing functionality for sharing the one or more data assets for multiple access. Lastly, the user interface generation engine is configured to render data assets in the form of one or more visualization types associated with different Business Intelligence (BI) tools based on a pre-defined set of rules. The rendered multiple data assets are combined based on a second type of data analytics action for configuring and rendering dashboard, Basu: [0007], [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Basu further discloses, wherein the data summarizing the uses of the data assets comprises business intelligence stack data, and wherein the processing system is configured to execute a user interface module configured to generate the report data to include data indicative of end user representations of the uses of the data assets according to the business intelligence stack data (e.g. the subsystem 102 provides a unified digital experience to the users by providing an integrated data analytics platform based on one or more functionalities such as, but not limited to, single user interface (UI) for data analytics and generating data insights, providing a single dashboard for multiple data reports and analytical assets associated with multiple BI tools, data user (e.g. data consumers, data analyst, data scientists, leaders/owners, Information Technology (IT) administration, etc.) based personalized data insights generation, continuous data access across various platforms (e.g., centralized data stores, data marts, BI tools, applications and other analytical solutions), Artificial Intelligence (AI) based dynamic data insights, a single catalog containing multiple analytical assets, and private and secure data analytics, Basu: [0024], [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Joa further teaches, wherein the end user representations include one or more of reports, models, or analytics (e.g. the data is presented to the user via the user's designated communications channel. Data may be presented in a variety of ways, including a summary format (as illustrated in FIG. 7 and FIG. 9), a drilled down format (as illustrated in FIG. 8), and dashboard format (as illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 12) Joa: [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A system and method for generating an improved user interface for data analytics as disclosed by Basu to include A unified view of data for different organizations of a business as taught by Joa to provide the data in a timelier basis.
Regarding claim 6, Basu further discloses, wherein the report data includes, for each of the end user representations, one or more of a name for the end user representation, a description of the end user representation, an owner of the end user representation, a subject matter expert associated with the end user representation, or data representing one or more data elements used in the end user representation (e.g. a The asset owners may use role owner for providing asset access to the users. In an embodiment of the present invention, the asset privacy defining unit 244 of the data asset fetching unit 216 is configured with feature sets that enable users to configure page level access to the asset in association with the role creation and management unit 248 for providing personalized rendering of assets via the asset rending unit 226 of the user interface generation and rendering unit, Basu: [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Joa further teaches, wherein the access events include one or more of queries of the data assets, aggregations of the data assets, virtualizations of the data assets, or reports of the data assets (see Joa: Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A system and method for generating an improved user interface for data analytics as disclosed by Basu to include A unified view of data for different organizations of a business as taught by Joa to provide the data in a timelier basis.
Regarding claim 8, Basa further discloses, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
receive a request for a new end user representation based on the data assets (e.g. a sharing request sent by the second user [as new end user] to the first user, Basu: [0035]);
determine whether data for the new end user representation has previously been generated according to the data summarizing the uses of the data assets (e.g. viewing and using the already generated visualization type, Basu: [0035]); and
when the data for the new end user representation has previously been generated, generate a response to the request indicating that the data for the new end user representation has previously been generated (e.g. Sharing of one or more data assets relates to sharing of data assets by a first user to a second user based on a sharing request sent by the second user to the first user. The first user may provide access [as a response] to the second user for viewing the same at the second user's end. The second user may visualize the data asset at his/her end, instead of configuring a new data asset, Basu: [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Basa further discloses, wherein the processing system is further configured to store the data summarizing the uses of the data assets along with data management data for the data assets (e.g. a single catalog containing/storing multiple analytical assets, and private and secure data analytics, Basu: [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Joa further teaches, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
receive a request for data from a user (e.g. a user request, Basu: abstract, [0031]);
determine a set of possible data assets of the data assets that may be used to satisfy the request (e.g. the result sets are rendered via the GUI based on one or more rendering techniques such as, but are not limited to, ranking of result sets, accessing criteria of the result sets and frequency of usage of result sets, Basu: [0034]);
rate each possible data asset of the set of possible data assets according to a likelihood of satisfying the request and overall health scores for the possible data assets (e.g. the result sets are rendered via the UI based on one or more rendering techniques such as, but are not limited to, ranking of result sets, accessing criteria of the result sets and frequency of usage of result sets, Basu: [0048]); and
provide the set of possible data assets and the ratings to the user (e.g. the data assets are fetched in order to render the one or more data assets related to search sets as the one or more result sets via the UI for the received search request, Basu: [0048]).
Claims 11-19 recite A method, comprising steps are similar to subject matter of claims 1-8 and 10. Therefore, claims 11-19 are rejected by the same reasons as claims 1-8 and 10.
Claim 20 recites A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause a processing system to perform steps are similar to subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CECILE H VO whose telephone number is (571)270-3031. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9AM-5PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CECILE H VO/Examiner, Art Unit 2153 9/20/2025
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153