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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 01/22/2025, claims priority from Provisional Application 63/624138, filed 01/23/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim et al. (11,895,121) in view of Mamou et al. (2005/0222931).
As per claim 1, Karim et al. teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to: receive, from a source application, input data corresponding to a predefined data schema [Karim et al., col. 37, ll. 53-col. 38, ll. 3 and col. 32, ll. 1-18];
identify, based on the input data, a plurality of policy configurations [Karim et al., col. 5, ll. 17-33], each policy configuration comprising:
a first layer defining a first subset of policies, a second layer defining a second subset of policies, and a third layer defining data associated with a data structure [Karim et al., col. 6, ll. 30-46, col. 10, ll. 12-53 and col. 22, ll. 51-col. 23, ll. 22];
map the input data to input fields defined within the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer of each policy configuration [Karim et al., col. 32, ll. 38-col. 33, ll. 4];
select, in response to mapping the input data to the input fields, a policy configuration for a target engine [Karim et al., col. 33, ll. 5-18];
generate, based on the policy configuration, executable instructions for the target engine [Karim et al., col. 34, ll. 39-64]; and
transmit the executable instructions to the target engine to cause the target engine to execute a network operation [Karim et al., col. 34, ll. 65-col. 35, ll. 17].
But Karim et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Mamou et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a profile data structure [Mamou et al., paragraph 0377].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Karim et al. with Mamou et al. in order to provide improved methods and systems for deploying data integration functions.
As per claim 2, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the predefined data schema comprises at least one of a comma-separated value (CSV) format, a tab-separated value (TSV) format, a fixed-width format, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) format [Karim et al., col. 26, ll. 50-57].
As per claim 3, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions comprise data transformed from the input data corresponding to the predefined data schema into a format compatible with the target engine [Mamou et al., paragraph 0234].
As per claim 4, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the format compatible with the target engine comprises at least one of a serialized data format or a binary data format [Karim et al., col. 40, ll. 17-29].
As per claim 5, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the executable instructions to cause the target engine to execute the network operation in compliance with at least one of the first layer or the second layer of the policy configuration [Karim et al., col. 31, ll. 23-46].
As per claim 6, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to map the input data to the input fields defined within the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer of each policy configuration based at least on a hierarchical mapping [Mamou et al., paragraph 0220].
As per claim 7, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the hierarchical mapping comprises at least one of a partial mapping, a dynamic mapping, a rule-based mapping, or semantic mapping [Karim et al., col. 12, ll. 21-37].
As per claim 8, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, based on the policy configuration, the target engine to execute the network operation [Karim et al., col. 55, ll. 5-36].
As per claim 9, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a notification upon determining that: a data element in the input data does not have a corresponding input field in any of the first, second, or third layers of the policy configuration; or the input field does not have a corresponding data element in the input data [Mamou et al., paragraph 0216].
As per claim 10, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive the input data from the source application via an application programming interface [Karim et al., col. 30, ll. 42-55].
As per claim 11, Karim-Mamou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the executable instructions to the target engine via an application programming interface [Karim et al., col. 38, ll. 41-60].
As per claim 12, Karim et al. teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, coupled with memory, from a source application, input data corresponding to a predefined data schema [Karim et al., col. 37, ll. 53-col. 38, ll. 3 and col. 32, ll. 1-18];
identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of policy configurations [Karim et al., col. 5, ll. 17-33], each policy configuration comprising:
a first layer defining a first subset of policies, a second layer defining a second subset of policies, and a third layer defining data associated with a data structure [Karim et al., col. 6, ll. 30-46, col. 10, ll. 12-53 and col. 22, ll. 51-col. 23, ll. 22];
mapping, by the one or more processors, the input data to input fields defined within the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer of each policy configuration [Karim et al., col. 32, ll. 38-col. 33, ll. 4];
selecting, by the one or more processors, in response to mapping the input data to the input fields, a policy configuration for a target engine [Karim et al., col. 33, ll. 5-18];
generating, by the one or more processors, based on the policy configuration, executable instructions for the target engine [Karim et al., col. 34, ll. 39-64];
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the executable instructions to the target engine to cause the target engine to execute a network operation [Karim et al., col. 34, ll. 65-col. 35, ll. 17]; and
providing, by the one or more processors, to the source application, output data of the network operation executed by the target engine [Karim et al., col. 37, ll. 18-41].
But Karim et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Mamou et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a profile data structure [Mamou et al., paragraph 0377].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Karim et al. with Mamou et al. in order to provide improved methods and systems for deploying data integration functions.
As per claim 20, Karim et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more instructions stored thereon and executable by a processor to: receive, from a source application, input data corresponding to a predefined data schema [Karim et al., col. 37, ll. 53-col. 38, ll. 3 and col. 32, ll. 1-18];
identify, based on the input data, a plurality of policy configurations [Karim et al., col. 5, ll. 17-33], each policy configuration comprising:
a first layer defining a first subset of policies, a second layer defining a second subset of policies, and a third layer defining data associated with a data structure [Karim et al., col. 6, ll. 30-46, col. 10, ll. 12-53 and col. 22, ll. 51-col. 23, ll. 22];
map the input data to input fields defined within the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer of each policy configuration [Karim et al., col. 32, ll. 38-col. 33, ll. 4];
select, in response to mapping the input data to the input fields, a policy configuration for a target engine [Karim et al., col. 33, ll. 5-18], the target engine identified based on the policy configuration [Karim et al., col. 35, ll. 18-32]; and
generate executable instructions for the target engine to cause the target engine to execute a network operation [Karim et al., col. 34, ll. 39-col. 35, ll. 17].
But Karim et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Mamou et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a profile data structure [Mamou et al., paragraph 0377].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Karim et al. with Mamou et al. in order to provide improved methods and systems for deploying data integration functions.
Claims 13-19 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights