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 .
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, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozkaya et al. (US 2017/0075953) in view of Talmor et al. (US 2015/0120783).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Bozkaya teaches a method (and corresponding system and medium) comprising:
Receiving a query request from a user for a first data object within a multi-tenant cloud-based environment, the query request identifying at least schema-level object stored within a schema (Natural language query from user to access vehicle table (i.e., object) – see [0128]. Database schema with multiple join mappings – see [0035] and [0048]).
Determining an absence of an access permission associated with the user based on security policies of the first data object (detecting that the appropriate data access permission is lacking – see [0129].
Identifying communication information of an administrator that has authority to grant the access permission to the user (system provides a suggestion as to resolve the failure. For example, the system may suggest the user to contact the database administrator to receive appropriate data access (i.e., communication information) and then rerun the query. The user can then follow the suggestions to resolve the failure so that the processing can proceed – see [0129].
Providing the communication information to the user (the system may suggest the user to contact the database administrator to receive appropriate data access (i.e., communication information) – [0129]).
Bozkaya teaches object dependencies within the schema (see [0034], for example). However, Bozkaya does not teach that the communication information is a second data object associated with the first data object.
Talmor teaches one implementation of a schema 600A of a user profile. This and other data structure descriptions that are expressed in terms of objects can also be implemented as tables that store multiple records or object types. Reference to objects is for convenience of explanation and not as a limitation on the data structure implementation. FIG. 6A shows a profile object 616 linked to event object 608, feed object 618, connection object 628, group object 624, and photo object 604. Photo object 604 is further linked to photo album object 602 and photo tag object 614. In other implementations, user profile schema 600A may not have the same objects, tables, fields or entries as those listed above and/or may have other/different objects, tables, fields or entries instead of, or in addition to, those listed above such as a work object, education object, or contact information object – see [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bozkaya by using the contact information of the administrator as a second data object that is associated with the first data object in order to quickly access dependent/related information for the data objects, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Talmor. These modifications would result in increased speed and ease of use to the system.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Bozkaya teaches receiving, from the administrator, a grant of the access permission for the first data object of the query request, validate the access permission based on security and compliance policies applicable to the first data object, execute the query upon successful validation of the access permission, and return the result of the first data object to the user (User has data access – see [0103]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Bozkaya teaches that the communication information comprises identification information of the administrator – see [0129]. In addition, Talmor teaches contact information as a type of schema level object – see [0061]. Therefore, the combination of references teaches the limitations of claims 3, 10, and 17.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Talmor teaches that the second data object is associated with two or more different data objects, including the first data object (FIG. 6A shows a profile object 616 linked to event object 608, feed object 618, connection object 628, group object 624, and photo object 604. Photo object 604 is further linked to photo album object 602 and photo tag object 614. In other implementations, user profile schema 600A may not have the same objects, tables, fields or entries as those listed above and/or may have other/different objects, tables, fields or entries instead of, or in addition to, those listed above such as a work object, education object, or contact information object – see [0061]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Talmor teaches automatically associating a third data object with the second data object when the second data object is associated with a schema object of the hierarchy (FIG. 6A shows a profile object 616 linked to event object 608, feed object 618, connection object 628, group object 624, and photo object 604. Photo object 604 is further linked to photo album object 602 and photo tag object 614. In other implementations, user profile schema 600A may not have the same objects, tables, fields or entries as those listed above and/or may have other/different objects, tables, fields or entries instead of, or in addition to, those listed above such as a work object, education object, or contact information object – see [0061]). In addition, Bozkaya teaches dependencies (hierarchy of objects) – see abstract, for example. Therefore, the combination of references teaches the claim limitations.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozkaya et al. (US 2017/0075953) in view of Talmor et al. (US 2015/0120783), and further in view of Biemer et al. (US 2023/0162224).
The teachings of Bozkaya and Talmor are relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, in addition, Bozkaya teaches that the administrator is an approver of an access request for the first data object (the system may suggest the user to contact the database administrator to receive appropriate data access – see [0129]).
However, Bozkaya does not teach that the communication information is provided by returning a plurality of different choices for the user to select, wherein the plurality of choices relate to different purposes of communication information.
Biemer teaches a management system wherein the system selects a reason for contacting the user – see [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bozkaya and Talmor by returning a plurality of choices for the user to select relating to different purposes of the communication information, for the purpose of sending the correct information to the user, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Biemer. These modifications would result in providing accurate and useful information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the second data object is visible to the user when the user is authorized to access metadata of at least one of the two or more different data objects, in combination with the other claim limitations, including the independent claim and intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights