Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0161648) in view of Walker et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0138013).
As to claim 1, Eberlein teaches a system for providing extensibility in an analytic applications environment, comprising:
a computer including one or more processors (see Eberlein paragraph [0021]),
that provides access by an analytic applications environment to at least one of a database or data warehouse for storage of data (see Eberlein paragraph [0033]. Databases are provided for storage of data. It is noted that analytical applications may be used in Eberlein, paragraph [0013]-[0015]); and
a semantic layer that enables semantic extensions to extend a semantic model for use with the data (see Eberlein paragraph [0015]-[0016]. Users have access to repositories that store metadata of object models. This is a semantic model of the data. As noted in paragraphs [0022]-[0025], a request may be received to update or modify an object model),
wherein the semantic model comprises:
a base semantic model operable to provide a packaged data content from the database or data warehouse to a presentation layer (see paragraph [0024]. Client independent metadata of the object model is stored. This client independent data is a “base semantic model”) ; and
one or more semantic extensions that modify the semantic model by extending the base semantic model incrementally through a series of changes to the base semantic model (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]. Extension metadata may be provided by a client. This extension metadata is merged with the underlying client independent metadata. This results in a merged object model that extends the base semantic model incrementally in view of the extension metadata);
…
wherein each delta change provides an incremental change to the semantic model (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]);
wherein a representation of the semantic model, including the changes to the semantic model as defined by the one or more semantic extensions, are saved as changes to a map of key value pairs, which representation is cached as a data structure in memory (see Eberlein paragraphs [0022]-[0025]. Changes, or extensions, to the object model are received. These are extensions to the semantic model. These changes may be cached in a memory, see paragraph [0025]. It is additionally noted that these extensions may be identified with keys and values, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]); and
wherein in response to a [request] generated at runtime, the system:
Dynamically merges the changes that are defined by the one or more semantic extensions and that are recorded … as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model, with the base semantic model, using the key value pairs (see paragraphs [0022]-[0025]. A request may be submitted from a client. In response to the request, the extensions are merged with the base semantic model); and
retrieves data from the database or data warehouse based on the representation of the semantic model as customized by the one or more semantic extensions (see Eberlein paragraphs [0022]-[0026]. A merged object model is created that processes data in view of the extensions), and
provides the data as custom content to a presentation layer (see Eberlein paragraphs [0022]-[0026]. Users may access the merged object model).
Eberlein does not explicitly teach:
wherein the series of changes to the base semantic model are recorded in a layered namespace comprising a plurality of extension layers as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model;
wherein in response to a query generated at runtime, the system:
Dynamically merges the changes that are defined by the one or more semantic extensions and that are recorded in the layered namespace as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model, with the base semantic model, using the key value pairs
Walker teaches:
wherein the series of changes to the base semantic model are recorded in a layered namespace comprising a plurality of extension layers as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model (see paragraphs [0091]-[0092]. Walker shows a layered namespace with incremental changes to a data model);
wherein in response to a query generated at runtime, the system:
Dynamically merges the changes that are defined by the one or more semantic extensions and that are recorded in the layered namespace as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model, with the base semantic model, using the key value pairs (see Walker paragraphs [0093]-[0097]. A user may query the system. Queries run within the context of a particular namespace against the objects defined for this namespace. Customer and user software will run against the namespace containing customer defined objects, but may be able to access lower level namespaces. Thus, from the viewpoint of a query against higher level namespaces, the changes are “merged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Eberlein by the teachings of Walker because both references are directed towards managing extensions to a data model through the use of namespaces. Walker merely provides additional structures to the namespace of Eberlein that will organize data in such a way that a user of Eberlein will be able to make extensions that are less vulnerable to conflicts (see Walker paragraphs [0091]-[0095]).
As to claim 2, Eberlein as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the changes to the semantic model are recorded in the layered namespace, including that each change associated with a particular layer of the layered namespace provides an incremental change to the semantic model that is associated with the particular layer (see Walker paragraphs [0091]-[0092]. Walker shows a layered namespace with incremental changes to a data model).
As to claim 3, Eberlein teaches as modified by Walker teaches wherein the layered namespace is defined by a file artifact having a plurality of regions associated with layers of the layered namespace, wherein each change associated with the particular layer of the layered namespace is defined within a corresponding region of the file artifact (see Walker paragraphs [0091]-[0095]).
As to claim 6, Eberlein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein in response to queries generated at runtime, the system dynamically merges the changes defined by the one or more semantic extensions with a base semantic model, to surface data based on the extended semantic model (see Eberlein paragraphs [0025]-[0026] for requests that merge changes are runtime. Also see Walker paragraphs [0093]-[0097] for merging changes from the point of view of a higher level layer).
As to claims 7 and 13, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claims 8 and 14, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claims 9 and 15, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claims 12 and 18, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0161648), in view of Walker et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0138013), and further in view of Kapoor et al. (US Patent 9,922,104).
As to claim 4, Eberlein teaches the system of claim 1.
Eberlein does not teach wherein the system performs an extract, transform, load process in accordance with one or more analytic applications schema or customer schema to receive data from an enterprise software application or data environment, for loading into a data warehouse instance.
Kapoor teaches wherein the system performs an extract, transform, load process in accordance with one or more analytic applications schema or customer schema to receive data from an enterprise software application or data environment, for loading into a data warehouse instance (see 5:24-43 and 6:31-48. Kapoor shows the use of an ETL that is capable of recognizing when schemas have changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Eberlein by the teachings of Kapoor because both references are directed towards managing data models for a database. Kapoor merely provides to users of Eberlein additional uses for incorporating needed data, which will increase the utility of the applications of Eberlein for users.
As to claim 5, Eberlein teaches the system of claim 1.
Eberlein does not teach wherein the analytic applications environment is provided within an analytics cloud environment.
Kapoor teaches wherein the analytic applications environment is provided within an analytics cloud environment (see Kapoor 3:37-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Eberlein by the teachings of Kapoor because both references are directed towards managing data models for a database. Kapoor merely provides to users of Eberlein additional uses for incorporating needed data, which will increase the utility of the applications of Eberlein for users.
As to claims 10 and 16, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claims 11 and 17, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “although Eberlein appears to describe a means of receiving, from a client, a request for access to an instance of an object model, and merging a client-independent metadata and extension metadata associated with the client to create a merged object model; Eberlein does not appear to describe or render obvious, for example, the use of a semantic layer to retrieve data from a database or data warehouse in accordance with a semantic model as customized by one or more semantic extensions through a series of changes to a base semantic model, wherein the series of changes to the base semantic model are recorded in a layered namespace comprising a plurality of extension layers as commits defining the changes to the semantic model as delta changes to the base semantic model.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Eberlein shows a semantic model in the form of the object model. This object model may be accessed by users. This is a semantic layer that retrieves data in accordance with the object model. A merged object created from the base model and user updates to the model may later be accessed by users.
It is noted that additionally cited reference Walker shows multiple layered namespaces with incremental changes occurring in each namespace (see Walker paragraphs [0091]-[0097]). This additionally shows semantic layers that are used to define objects in a system.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152