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 action is in response the amendment dated 12/26/2026. Claims 1-20 have been amended and claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, as amended is produced below for convenience. The amended portions of the claims are highlighted.
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): 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:
process one or more layers of a business intelligence stack to determine one or more access events to the data assets by system accounts associated with one or more external computing systems to the data assets;
in response to determining the in communication with the computing system one or more access events, generate at least one notification indicative of the one or more access events:
generate, based on the at least one notification, 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.
In accordance MPEP 2103 and 2111, examiner has relied of applicants disclosure, including the following sections for the meaning of certain claimed phrases/terminologies.
External systems:
[0092] Unified data catalog system 40 may utilize interfaces 44 to communicate with external systems or user computing devices via one or more networks.
Business Intelligence stack:
[0096] Data interaction unit 33 may be configured to systematically harvest information representing how information assets of unified data catalog 16 are used, consumed, aggregated, or the like. Data interaction unit 33 may generate summarization data representing accounts (user and system/faceless accounts) that interact with the information assets. The summarization data may be used to determine what data is queried not just by “named” user accounts, but by faceless system accounts. Data interaction unit 33 may review various business intelligence stacks and layers thereof to determine how data moves, is virtualized or aggregated, and prepared for consumption at reporting and analytics layers.
Access events:
[0072] Per the techniques of this disclosure, system 10 also includes data interaction unit 33. In general, data interaction unit 33 is configured to monitor various types of interactions with information assets of unified data catalog 16. For example, data interaction unit 33 may monitor various access events to the information assets, such as queries of the information assets, aggregations of the information assets, virtualizations of the information assets, or reports generated from the information assets.
Notification:
[0072] Per the techniques of this disclosure, system 10 also includes data interaction unit 33. In general, data interaction unit 33 is configured to monitor various types of interactions with information assets of unified data catalog 16. For example, data interaction unit 33 may monitor various access events to the information assets, such as queries of the information assets, aggregations of the information assets, virtualizations of the information assets, or reports generated from the information assets. Various components of system 10 (e.g., data aggregation unit 18, data processing unit 20, data domain definition unit 22, data linkage unit 29, and quality assessment unit 30) may be configured to send notifications to data interaction unit 33 when data is accessed via those components.
Summarizing uses (of data assets):
[0072] Thus, data interaction unit 33 may store data summarizing uses of the information assets along with other data management data for the information assets.
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, as amended, 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 represent ting 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).
Examiner notes that the limitation “one or more access events to the data assets by system accounts associated with one or more external computing systems” does not add any specificity as to the correlation between the accounts and data or to what being done with the account and data assets. This limitation does not convey anything more than account holders interact with a system using data/data assets.
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.
Examiner notes that the limitation, “in response to determining the in communication with the computing system one or more access events, generate at least one notification indicative of the one or more access events: and generate, based on the at least one notification does not convey anything more than account holders interact with a system using data/data assets and that the system is aware that the account holders are interacting with the system.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG-PUB 20200202026 A1 issued to Dharanikota.
With respect to Claim 1, Dharanikota teaches,
a computing system (Fig. 1,[0021], [0022], and [0025] “multi-tenant data platform with internal and external data sources is a computer network with multiplicity of configurations) comprising
a memory storing a plurality of data assets [0006]; and
a processing system of an enterprise [0006], the processing system comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry, the processing system being configured to:
process one or more layers of a business intelligence stack (Dharanikota, Fig. 1, elements 112, 114, 116, 120, 122, 128,132 and 134 represent different layers such as data presentation, data aggregation, data storing, metadata and secure data) to determine one or more access events (Fig. 3-6 represent dashboard and/or user interface in which a user can query data, and visualize/drill down the result of the query) to the data assets (the data shown in Fig. 3-6 are data assets) by system accounts associated with one or more external computing systems (Dharanikota , [0006]-[0007], teaches a computer system in which the “data owners” and “users” have “accounts”)
in communication with the computing system to the data assets;
in response to determining the one or more access events (access, login as taught in [0033] are access events), generate at least one notification (the system being “alerted” is a notification, [0033]) indicative of the one or more access events:
generate, based on the at least one notification, data summarizing uses of the data assets according to the access events and
output report data representing the data summarizing the uses (Dharanikota teaches a “summary of usage” in [0040] which is the same as output report as claimed) of the data assets.
Claims 11 and 20 are essentially the same as claim 1 except that they are directed to a method to be performed with the apparatus of claim 1, and a computer program product that is being used by the computer of claim 1 to perform the method of claim 11.
Claims 11 and 20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons and under the same rationale applied to claims 11 and 20 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG-PUB 20200202026 A1 issued to Dharanikota et al. (“Dharanikota”) in view of US Patent No. 10949791 issued to Mohanty et al. (Mohanty”).
Claim 2 recites one or more layers of the business intelligence stack include one or more of a data sources layer, a data warehouse layer, a data aggregation layer, [[or]] and a reporting layer, without indicating the correlation amongst the different layers.
With respect to claim 2, the business intelligence framework of Dharanikota, although performs the functionalities of the data source/data warehouse/data aggregation/reporting layers, it does not explicitly indicate and/or does not specifically delineate the elements of its Fig. 1 as being data sources layer, a data warehouse layer, a data aggregation layer, and a reporting layer. In other words
Mohanty, in a computer based enterprise level collaboration platform, which is the same field of endeavor as in Dharanikota, allows users seamless access to data , applications and services (see Mohanty, Abstract, col. 1, line 5-15, col. 2, lines 62-67) and Mohanty also describes the presentation, business logic, and database layers (see descriptions of Fig. 1-3 om col. 5, line 26 through col. 7, line 40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art prior to filing of instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Mohanty in Dharanikota because both the systems are directed to an unified platform for the users (i.e., same field of endeavor and similar problem solving) because the Dharanikota-Mohanty combination would enable a seamless collaboration and business service delivery resulting in a faster system and would lead to better stakeholders’ performance (Mohanty, col. 2, lines 5-8). Mohanty has also disclosed a series of suggestions (in Mohanty, col. 4, lines 30-65) such as how the combined system would address the pain areas for a large IT infrastructure, such as vendor independence, operational efficiency, reduction of duplicity, standardized governance, and alignment of business and information technology.
With respect to Claim 3 (the computing system of claim 1, 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), Dharanikota discloses a dashboard in Fig. 3-6 which has been configured for use by a wide range of users..
With respect to Claim 4 (the computing system of claim 1, 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) see the description provided in par. [0040] of Dharanikota.
With respect to Claim 5 (the computing system of claim 4, wherein the end user representations include one or more of reports, models, or analytics), Fig, 3-6 of Dharanikota discloses analytics. Dharanikota in par. [0026] teaches, “(i)n accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention, many different services may access various subsets of the common repository for many different applications and uses. For example, various teams and users may access the data for advanced analytics on card services; fraud and risk analytics to detect anomalies and development of marketing strategy and campaigns, etc.”
With respect to Claim 6 (the computing system of claim 4, 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), see Dharanikota, [0026].
With respect to claim 7 (the computing system of claim 1, wherein the access events include one or more of queries of the data assets, aggregations of the data assets, virtualizations of the data assets, and reports of the data assets, see Dharanikota, page 2, col. 1, [0022], page 3, col. 1, [0028] for “aggregation.”
With respect to claim 8 (the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to: receive a request for a new end user representation based on the data assets; determine whether data for the new end user representation has previously been generated according to the data summarizing the uses of the data assets; 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), Dharanikota’s utilization “use case” disclosed in par. [0028] reads on the subject matter of claim 8. See abstract of Dharanikota as well: “The invention relates to methods for implementing a unified framework for big data usage analytics and security profiling across heterogeneous platforms and multiple clusters. An embodiment of the present invention may be applied in various applications and use cases. This may include auditing for Big Data lakes; capacity assessment and charge back functionality for Big Data infrastructure and clusters and resource usage analytics.”
With respect to Claim 9 (the computing system of claim 1, 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), see Dharanikota page 4, col. 1, [0028] for summarization.
With respect to Claim 10 (the computing system of claim 1, 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; 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; and provide the set of possible data assets and the ratings to the user), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art prior to filing of instant invention to consider the generation and various subsets of data in Dharanikota to serve the multitude of users because Dharanikota discloses, in [0026], “(i)n accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention, many different services may access various subsets of the common repository for many different applications and uses. For example, various teams and users may access the data for advanced analytics on card services; fraud and risk analytics to detect anomalies and development of marketing strategy and campaigns, etc.”
Claims 12-19 are similar to claims 2-10 and recite similar limitation in the form of method steps, are rejected for the same reason and under the same rationale as applied to claims 2-10. (Currently Amended): The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more layers of the business intelligence stack include one or more of a data sources layer, a data warehouse layer, a data aggregation layer, and a reporting layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in response to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is advised to review the 101 rejection set forth in this action that addresses the limitations in the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection set forth in the previous office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights