DETAILED ACTION
This first non-final action is in response to applicants’ original filing on 02/20/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/20/2025 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 3 recites “the contract” which should be corrected as “the data contract”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites “A computing system for generating a data contract … comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor” which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Independent Claim 10 recites “A computer-implemented method for generating a data contract” which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Independent Claim 18 recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable media (CRM) storing instructions thereon, which when executed by at least one processor of a computing system for generating a data contract” which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite functions/steps for “generating a first interface for the data producer to register the data resource and to input conditions for using data of the data resource”; “causing the registered data resource to be added in a data catalog”; “generating a second interface for the data consumer to search the data catalog and request access to the data resource”; “generating a third interface for the data consumer to input a use case for the data resource”; and “generating the data contract based at least in part upon the conditions for using data of the data resource and based at least in part upon the use case inputted by the data consumer”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.) that covers fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Other than reciting “computing system”, “memory”, “processor” [Claim 1], and “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” [Claim 18], the claimed steps are tantamount to business contract creation (commercial interaction) through “producer” and “consumer” terms of agreement (i.e. applicants’ consumer inputs a “use case” and producer inputs “conditions for using data”). The last step of “generating the data contract” is based “upon the conditions for using data… and the use case inputted by the data consumer”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Claims 1, 10 and 18 recite functions for gathering usage terms to generate a commercial contract for accessing a consumer good (i.e. data resource may simply comprise information). The recitations of “generating a… interface”, and “causing the registered data resource to be added to a data catalog” are nominal recitations that can be performed by either generic computing elements or paper forms/paper catalogue/written legal contract and does not preclude the claimed functions from falling within certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 1’s “computing system”, “memory”, “processor” and Claim 18’s “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of commercial contract agreement. The additional elements of “generating a first interface”, “generating a second interface”, and “generating a third interface” are insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering incidental to generating a data contract. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of Claim 1’s “computing system”, “memory”, “processor” and Claim 18’s “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” amount to no more than using programming to apply the exception using a generic computer. Programming to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 10, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim 2 further recites “validate a subsequent data access request from the data consumer against the generated data contract” which amounts to checking whether the consumer can access something (i.e. data/information) for a second time based upon the written contract which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 3 further recites “determine whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer” which falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Checking whether an approval is required from one party to access information is an abstract idea, i.e. contractual agreement. Therefore, Claim 3 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 4 further recites “request approval from the data producer of the use case prior to generating the data contract” which falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Requesting approval from a data producer for a consumer’s intended data use is an abstract idea, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Therefore, Claim 4 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 6 further recites “a first component of the generated data contract includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules” but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The inclusion of metadata in the data contract is for defining data format and rules which are equivalent to terms/conditions of the contract to access information. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and therefore, Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 7 further recites “generate a fourth interface for the data producer to select a schema from a list of schemas for the data contract” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Selecting a scheme from a list of schemas for the data contract fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of a commercial contract and therefore, Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 8 further recites “generate a fifth interface for the data consumer to select one or more access patterns related to use of the data resource by the data consumer”, but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A consumer selecting an access pattern to use the data resource (i.e. contractual information) could broadly include choosing a time of day or interval for accessing the information (i.e. data resource) which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and therefore, Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 11 further recites “validating a subsequent data access request from the data consumer against the generated data contract” which amounts to checking whether the consumer can access something (i.e. data/information) for a second time based upon the written contract which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 11 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 12 further recites “determining whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer” which falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Checking whether an approval is required from one party to access information is an abstract idea, i.e. contractual agreement. Therefore, Claim 12 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 13 further recites “requesting approval from the data producer of the use case prior to the generating the data contract” which falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Requesting approval from a data producer for a consumer’s intended data use is an abstract idea, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Therefore, Claim 13 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 15 further recites “generating a fourth interface for the data producer to select a schema from a list of schemas for the data contract” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Selecting a scheme from a list of schemas for the data contract fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of a commercial contract and therefore, Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 16 further recites “generating a fifth interface for the data consumer to select one or more access patterns related to use of the data resource by the data consumer”, but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A consumer selecting an access pattern to use the data resource (i.e. contractual information) could broadly include choosing a time of day or interval for accessing the information (i.e. data resource) which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and therefore, Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 19 further recites “request approval from the data producer of the use case prior to generating the contract” which falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Requesting approval from a data producer for a consumer’s intended data use is an abstract idea, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Therefore, Claim 19 fails to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 20 further recites “a first component of the generated data contract includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules” but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The inclusion of metadata in the data contract is for defining data format and rules which are equivalent to terms/conditions of the contract to access information. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and therefore, Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narayanaswami et al. (US 20210271649 A1, hereinafter Narayanaswami).
As to Claim 1:
Narayanaswami discloses a computing system for generating a data contract between a data producer and a data consumer for usage of a data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “A data supply chain system and method can be provided. The system, in an aspect, may include a hardware processor and a memory device coupled with the hardware processor. The hardware processor can be configured to facilitate discovery and cataloging of data. The hardware processor can also be configured to facilitate automated data contract negotiation associated with the data. The hardware processor can also be configured to prepare and authenticate the data based on the data contract. The hardware processor can also be configured to monitor data usage of the data” [0005]), the computing system comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (e.g. Narayanaswami memory device and hardware processor [0005]; “A computer readable storage medium storing a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform one or more methods” [0007]), wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:
generate a first interface for the data producer to register the data resource and to input conditions for using data of the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]; FIG. 6 PROVIDER agrees to list data in catalog and provide granularity, expiry info, data usage; through user interface (UI) [0100], catalog builder separate mechanism to register, “the provider may provide data description such as origin, certifier information and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data details. The provider may provide detailed data description, e.g., metadata, geography, time range, granularity, expiry information, and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data price, bundles, and/or use information. The provider may provide data price, usage, ratings, and bias information. The catalog builder may request for data model and APIs. The provider may provide data model and APIs. The catalog builder may request for changes in price, range, bundles, and/or others. The provider may provide revised pricing information” [0101]; “Data pricing and terms element of the data contract negotiation functional block 104 can include pricing library (e.g., historical market price, trial pricing, surge pricing, volume pricing, bundle pricing, time-window pricing, subscription based pricing, outcome base pricing, geography dependent pricing), contractual terms (e.g., time period, deletion, number of users, usage frequency, etc.), capabilities to select and agree to pricing and contractual terms” [0058]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices” [0087]; usage restrictions on the data [0041]);
cause the registered data resource to be added in a data catalog (e.g. Narayanaswami FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating data registration in catalog in an embodiment [0014]; “The data discovery catalog can contain data and metadata that support this rich and complex consumer environment” [0045]; “The catalog builder may agree to list data in catalog. The provider may provide financial data. The catalog builder may set up data in catalog. Both parties record agreement” [0101]);
generate a second interface for the data consumer to search the data catalog and request access to the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “A set of data ontologies may be included in the catalog so requesters can use software apriori to parse the details of the available data” [0041]; “The requester may make a data request and provide a description of the requester, use purpose, time range, geography, and/or other filters” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]);
generate a third interface for the data consumer to input a use case for the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “data request that specifies the purpose for the data request” [0049]; “The requester may provide additional data request description, e.g., pricing, terms of use, trial or bundle price. The catalog operator may provide price, bundles, and use information” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]); and
generate the data contract based at least in part upon the conditions for using data of the data resource and the use case inputted by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “The catalog operator may provide a machine readable data contract. The requester may send a completed or filled-in contract with modifications such as anonymization. The catalog operator may finalize contract and request payment information” [0102]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices… it can certify the compliance of the content consumer to the agreed upon contract terms” [0087]).
As to Claim 2:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to validate a subsequent data access request from the data consumer against the generated data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “Responsive to determining that there is a valid data setup request and active data contract, at 804, the data contract is retrieved and interpreted to curate data. At 806, data is curated per contract” [0105]; “At 902, it is determined whether there is a valid data request with active funded contract. If so, at 904, a method may include retrieving and serving a requested data contract… Responsive to determining that there is no valid data request at 902, the method may include at 914, rejecting the data request” [0113]; “Retrieving and interpreting data disposal contract at 1006 can be triggered based on determining that a valid data disposal request has been received at 1004, and/or automatically determining contract expiration or default at 1002” [0115]).
As to Claim 4:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to request approval from the data producer of the use case prior to generating the data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “Aspects of automated data contract negotiation, for example, performed in the data contract negotiation functional block 104, can include a machine-readable data request that specifies the purpose for the data request, requested temporal, geographical bounds for the data, and other user specified or domain specific filters for the data. Other negotiable parameters can include guarantees to keep the data fresh and clean for the duration of the contract. Liability issues on usage of data may be spelled out as well. This may be similar to digital rights management (DRM) for use of images (e.g., can be used for any purpose, can be used but attribution to be provided, can be used with modification, etc.). Providers that satisfy the criteria may provide a response along with pricing information for the data” [0049]; “contractual terms for the pricing and usage such as number of users and license. Based on the results of the data testing, a contract can be established after payment information gets exchanged” [0050]; “Once the content consumer has indicated content purchase preferences, the content producer/distributor determines the buyer's suitability to access and consume that content prior to authorizing the transaction… the content consumers' usage intent and rights, along with their ability to purchase are also ascertained by the content producer/distributor to determine the appropriate offer bundle and associated pricing along with its accompanying constraints/flexibility to ensure a high likelihood of a productive outcome for both the content consumer and the content producer/distributor” [0053]; [0056]-[0059]).
As to Claim 7:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate a fourth interface for the data producer to select a schema from a list of schemas for the data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “providing a descriptive catalog with data certifications and meta data via an ecosystem of data providers that allows for creation of dynamic data contracts, by selecting and customizing contract templates drawn from a contracts template library, compliant with applicable regulatory requirements” [0026]; [0051]).
As to Claim 8:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate a fifth interface for the data consumer to select one or more access patterns related to use of the data resource by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “The requester may make a data request and provide a description of the requester, use purpose, time range, geography, and/or other filters… The requester may provide additional data request description, e.g., pricing, terms of use, trial or bundle price” [0102]).
As to Claim 9:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to initiate one or more processes automatically to: grant access to the data resource to the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “a system, method and technique can provide an automation of locating and provisioning the right data or subset of data, e.g., when needed, at the right granularity…facilitation of automated data disposal and data forensics for compliance and reporting” [0025]; [0031]-[0034]; [0068]); and initiate a data audit to enforce data integrity, security, and reliability of use of the data by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “Data forensics and reporting can record the usage of data by services and micro-services, by date, time, geography, etc., and ensure compliance with the contract terms and regulatory requirements… Reports can be provided regarding who used the data and for what purpose and when it was used… Data from key operations at every stage can be sent to the blockchain to maintain a trusted log for the usage and disposal of data” [0037]; “The data storage and usage monitoring element may track data usage by access credential, time epochs, geography, data segments, etc., monitor compliance of data usage with contractual terms during run time, tag stored data copies for deletion compliant with terms of usage to facilitate detection, and log metadata related to data and model usage for forensics and reporting” [0074]; [0075]; [0077]; [0088]; [0089]).
As to Claim 10:
Narayanaswami discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a data contract between a data producer and a data consumer for usage of a data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “A data supply chain system and method can be provided. The system, in an aspect, may include a hardware processor and a memory device coupled with the hardware processor. The hardware processor can be configured to facilitate discovery and cataloging of data. The hardware processor can also be configured to facilitate automated data contract negotiation associated with the data. The hardware processor can also be configured to prepare and authenticate the data based on the data contract. The hardware processor can also be configured to monitor data usage of the data” [0005]), the method comprising:
generating a first interface for the data producer to register the data resource and to input conditions for using data of the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]; FIG. 6 PROVIDER agrees to list data in catalog and provide granularity, expiry info, data usage; through user interface (UI) [0100], catalog builder separate mechanism to register, “the provider may provide data description such as origin, certifier information and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data details. The provider may provide detailed data description, e.g., metadata, geography, time range, granularity, expiry information, and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data price, bundles, and/or use information. The provider may provide data price, usage, ratings, and bias information. The catalog builder may request for data model and APIs. The provider may provide data model and APIs. The catalog builder may request for changes in price, range, bundles, and/or others. The provider may provide revised pricing information” [0101]; “Data pricing and terms element of the data contract negotiation functional block 104 can include pricing library (e.g., historical market price, trial pricing, surge pricing, volume pricing, bundle pricing, time-window pricing, subscription based pricing, outcome base pricing, geography dependent pricing), contractual terms (e.g., time period, deletion, number of users, usage frequency, etc.), capabilities to select and agree to pricing and contractual terms” [0058]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices” [0087]; usage restrictions on the data [0041]);
causing the registered data resource to be added in a data catalog (e.g. Narayanaswami FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating data registration in catalog in an embodiment [0014]; “The data discovery catalog can contain data and metadata that support this rich and complex consumer environment” [0045]; “The catalog builder may agree to list data in catalog. The provider may provide financial data. The catalog builder may set up data in catalog. Both parties record agreement” [0101]);
generating a second interface for the data consumer to search the data catalog and request access to the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “A set of data ontologies may be included in the catalog so requesters can use software apriori to parse the details of the available data” [0041]; “The requester may make a data request and provide a description of the requester, use purpose, time range, geography, and/or other filters” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]);
generating a third interface for the data consumer to input a use case for the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “data request that specifies the purpose for the data request” [0049]; “The requester may provide additional data request description, e.g., pricing, terms of use, trial or bundle price. The catalog operator may provide price, bundles, and use information” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]); and
generating the data contract based at least in part upon the conditions for using data of the data resource and based at least in part upon the use case inputted by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “The catalog operator may provide a machine readable data contract. The requester may send a completed or filled-in contract with modifications such as anonymization. The catalog operator may finalize contract and request payment information” [0102]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices… it can certify the compliance of the content consumer to the agreed upon contract terms” [0087]).
As to Claim 11:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising validating a subsequent data access request from the data consumer against the generated data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “Responsive to determining that there is a valid data setup request and active data contract, at 804, the data contract is retrieved and interpreted to curate data. At 806, data is curated per contract” [0105]; “At 902, it is determined whether there is a valid data request with active funded contract. If so, at 904, a method may include retrieving and serving a requested data contract… Responsive to determining that there is no valid data request at 902, the method may include at 914, rejecting the data request” [0113]; “Retrieving and interpreting data disposal contract at 1006 can be triggered based on determining that a valid data disposal request has been received at 1004, and/or automatically determining contract expiration or default at 1002” [0115]).
As to Claim 13:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising requesting approval from the data producer of the use case prior to the generating the data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “Aspects of automated data contract negotiation, for example, performed in the data contract negotiation functional block 104, can include a machine-readable data request that specifies the purpose for the data request, requested temporal, geographical bounds for the data, and other user specified or domain specific filters for the data. Other negotiable parameters can include guarantees to keep the data fresh and clean for the duration of the contract. Liability issues on usage of data may be spelled out as well. This may be similar to digital rights management (DRM) for use of images (e.g., can be used for any purpose, can be used but attribution to be provided, can be used with modification, etc.). Providers that satisfy the criteria may provide a response along with pricing information for the data” [0049]; “contractual terms for the pricing and usage such as number of users and license. Based on the results of the data testing, a contract can be established after payment information gets exchanged” [0050]; “Once the content consumer has indicated content purchase preferences, the content producer/distributor determines the buyer's suitability to access and consume that content prior to authorizing the transaction… the content consumers' usage intent and rights, along with their ability to purchase are also ascertained by the content producer/distributor to determine the appropriate offer bundle and associated pricing along with its accompanying constraints/flexibility to ensure a high likelihood of a productive outcome for both the content consumer and the content producer/distributor” [0053]; [0056]-[0059]).
As to Claim 15:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising generating a fourth interface for the data producer to select a schema from a list of schemas for the data contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “providing a descriptive catalog with data certifications and meta data via an ecosystem of data providers that allows for creation of dynamic data contracts, by selecting and customizing contract templates drawn from a contracts template library, compliant with applicable regulatory requirements” [0026]; [0051]).
As to Claim 16:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising generating a fifth interface for the data consumer to select one or more access patterns related to use of the data resource by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “The requester may make a data request and provide a description of the requester, use purpose, time range, geography, and/or other filters… The requester may provide additional data request description, e.g., pricing, terms of use, trial or bundle price” [0102]).
As to Claim 17:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising initiating one or more processes automatically to: grant access to the data resource to the data consumer; and initiate a data audit to enforce data integrity, security, and reliability of use of the data by the data consume (e.g. Narayanaswami “a system, method and technique can provide an automation of locating and provisioning the right data or subset of data, e.g., when needed, at the right granularity…facilitation of automated data disposal and data forensics for compliance and reporting” [0025]; [0031]-[0034]; [0068]); and initiate a data audit to enforce data integrity, security, and reliability of use of the data by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “Data forensics and reporting can record the usage of data by services and micro-services, by date, time, geography, etc., and ensure compliance with the contract terms and regulatory requirements… Reports can be provided regarding who used the data and for what purpose and when it was used… Data from key operations at every stage can be sent to the blockchain to maintain a trusted log for the usage and disposal of data” [0037]; “The data storage and usage monitoring element may track data usage by access credential, time epochs, geography, data segments, etc., monitor compliance of data usage with contractual terms during run time, tag stored data copies for deletion compliant with terms of usage to facilitate detection, and log metadata related to data and model usage for forensics and reporting” [0074]; [0075]; [0077]; [0088]; [0089]).
As to Claim 18:
Narayanaswami discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable media (CRM) storing instructions thereon (e.g. Narayanaswami “A computer readable storage medium storing a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform one or more methods” [0007]), which when executed by at least one processor (e.g. Narayanaswami memory device and hardware processor [0005]) of a computing system (e.g. Narayanaswami FIG. 12, 13) for generating a data contract between a data producer and a data consumer for usage of a data resource, cause the at least one processor to:
generate a first interface for the data producer to register the data resource and to input conditions for using data of the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]; FIG. 6 PROVIDER agrees to list data in catalog and provide granularity, expiry info, data usage; through user interface (UI) [0100], catalog builder separate mechanism to register, “the provider may provide data description such as origin, certifier information and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data details. The provider may provide detailed data description, e.g., metadata, geography, time range, granularity, expiry information, and/or others. The catalog builder may request for data price, bundles, and/or use information. The provider may provide data price, usage, ratings, and bias information. The catalog builder may request for data model and APIs. The provider may provide data model and APIs. The catalog builder may request for changes in price, range, bundles, and/or others. The provider may provide revised pricing information” [0101]; “Data pricing and terms element of the data contract negotiation functional block 104 can include pricing library (e.g., historical market price, trial pricing, surge pricing, volume pricing, bundle pricing, time-window pricing, subscription based pricing, outcome base pricing, geography dependent pricing), contractual terms (e.g., time period, deletion, number of users, usage frequency, etc.), capabilities to select and agree to pricing and contractual terms” [0058]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices” [0087]; usage restrictions on the data [0041]);
cause the registered data resource to be added in a data catalog (e.g. Narayanaswami FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating data registration in catalog in an embodiment [0014]; “The data discovery catalog can contain data and metadata that support this rich and complex consumer environment” [0045]; “The catalog builder may agree to list data in catalog. The provider may provide financial data. The catalog builder may set up data in catalog. Both parties record agreement” [0101]);
generate a second interface for the data consumer to search the data catalog and request access to the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “A set of data ontologies may be included in the catalog so requesters can use software apriori to parse the details of the available data” [0041]; “The requester may make a data request and provide a description of the requester, use purpose, time range, geography, and/or other filters” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]);
generate a third interface for the data consumer to input a use case for the data resource (e.g. Narayanaswami “data request that specifies the purpose for the data request” [0049]; “The requester may provide additional data request description, e.g., pricing, terms of use, trial or bundle price. The catalog operator may provide price, bundles, and use information” [0102]; “interfaces to query for and to obtain data” [0047]); and
generate the data contract based at least in part upon the conditions for using data of the data resource and based at least in part upon the use case inputted by the data consumer (e.g. Narayanaswami “The catalog operator may provide a machine readable data contract. The requester may send a completed or filled-in contract with modifications such as anonymization. The catalog operator may finalize contract and request payment information” [0102]; “Depending on the contractual terms agreed to by the content consumer for the content provisioned, during various points in the life of the contract or upon the conclusion of the contract term, the DRM engine can locate and inhibit content usage, e.g., pause or delete, from one, some or all of the consumption points/devices… it can certify the compliance of the content consumer to the agreed upon contract terms” [0087]).
As to Claim 19:
Narayanaswami discloses the at least one non-transitory CRM of claim 18, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to request approval from the data producer of the use case prior to generating the contract (e.g. Narayanaswami “Aspects of automated data contract negotiation, for example, performed in the data contract negotiation functional block 104, can include a machine-readable data request that specifies the purpose for the data request, requested temporal, geographical bounds for the data, and other user specified or domain specific filters for the data. Other negotiable parameters can include guarantees to keep the data fresh and clean for the duration of the contract. Liability issues on usage of data may be spelled out as well. This may be similar to digital rights management (DRM) for use of images (e.g., can be used for any purpose, can be used but attribution to be provided, can be used with modification, etc.). Providers that satisfy the criteria may provide a response along with pricing information for the data” [0049]; “contractual terms for the pricing and usage such as number of users and license. Based on the results of the data testing, a contract can be established after payment information gets exchanged” [0050]; “Once the content consumer has indicated content purchase preferences, the content producer/distributor determines the buyer's suitability to access and consume that content prior to authorizing the transaction… the content consumers' usage intent and rights, along with their ability to purchase are also ascertained by the content producer/distributor to determine the appropriate offer bundle and associated pricing along with its accompanying constraints/flexibility to ensure a high likelihood of a productive outcome for both the content consumer and the content producer/distributor” [0053]; [0056]-[0059]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami in view of Sirota et al. (US 7801771 B1, hereinafter Sirota).
As to Claim 3:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose:
determine whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer.
However, the analogous art Sirota does disclose determine whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer (e.g. Sirota “corresponding information is forwarded to an Access Controller component 260 of the WSM system to determine whether to approve the request (e.g., based on whether sufficient appropriate information was provided, and/or on whether other predefined criteria have been satisfied, such as whether use conditions and other criteria for a selected usage model are satisfied with respect to a consumer request for access to a WS), and indicates to the front end whether the request was approved” [column 18 lines 63-67]-[column 19 lines 1-4]; “the front end forwards information regarding WS consumer… access requests to the Access Controller for determination of whether to approve the requests, and the Access Controller responds to the front end in an appropriate manner” [column 19 lines 16-20]). Narayanaswami and Sirota are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in providers and consumers.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Sirota before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Sirota to include determine whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate interactions between computing systems, such as providing an electronic Web service ("WS") marketplace via which third-party WS providers make their WSes available to third-party WS consumers who locate and purchase access to those WSes via the electronic marketplace (Sirota [columns 2-3]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Sirota to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As to Claim 12:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, but does not specifically disclose:
determining whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer.
However, the analogous art Sirota does disclose determining whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer (e.g. Sirota “corresponding information is forwarded to an Access Controller component 260 of the WSM system to determine whether to approve the request (e.g., based on whether sufficient appropriate information was provided, and/or on whether other predefined criteria have been satisfied, such as whether use conditions and other criteria for a selected usage model are satisfied with respect to a consumer request for access to a WS), and indicates to the front end whether the request was approved” [column 18 lines 63-67]-[column 19 lines 1-4]; “the front end forwards information regarding WS consumer… access requests to the Access Controller for determination of whether to approve the requests, and the Access Controller responds to the front end in an appropriate manner” [column 19 lines 16-20]). Narayanaswami and Sirota are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in providers and consumers.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Sirota before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Sirota to include determining whether an approval from the data producer is required to grant access to the data resource to the data consumer for the use case inputted by the data consumer as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate interactions between computing systems, such as providing an electronic Web service ("WS") marketplace via which third-party WS providers make their WSes available to third-party WS consumers who locate and purchase access to those WSes via the electronic marketplace (Sirota [columns 2-3]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Sirota to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami in view of Jensen et al. (US 20110264588 A, hereinafter Jensen).
As to Claim 5:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose:
store the generated data contract in a database; and render the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource (although Narayanaswami clearly teaches data contract retrieval [0105]; [0113]).
However, the analogous art Jensen does disclose store the generated data contract in a database (e.g. Jensen “the service contract module 206 has a service contract maintenance module 422 for maintaining the service contracts stored in the service contract database 421” [0125]); and render the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource (e.g. Jensen “access to a service contract database 421 of the service contract module 206 for receiving reference data and data about service contracts when the received shipment price request is related to a customer that has one or more service, contracts associated with it” [0123]; “retrieval process searches, in the service contract database 421 for a service contract applicable to the corresponding customer associated to the request” [0136]). Narayanaswami and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in customer contracts.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Jensen before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Jensen to include store the generated data contract in a database; and render the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for storing a service contract as a data structure indicative of a plurality of service contract lines, each service contract line having a status field attached to it indicative of a contractual status of the service contract line (Jensen [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Jensen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As to Claim 14:
Narayanaswami discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, but does not specifically disclose:
storing the generated data contract in a database; and rendering the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource (although Narayanaswami clearly teaches data contract retrieval [0105]; [0113]).
However, the analogous art Jensen does disclose storing the generated data contract in a database (e.g. Jensen “the service contract module 206 has a service contract maintenance module 422 for maintaining the service contracts stored in the service contract database 421” [0125]); and rendering the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource (e.g. Jensen “access to a service contract database 421 of the service contract module 206 for receiving reference data and data about service contracts when the received shipment price request is related to a customer that has one or more service, contracts associated with it” [0123]; “retrieval process searches, in the service contract database 421 for a service contract applicable to the corresponding customer associated to the request” [0136]). Narayanaswami and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in customer contracts.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Jensen before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Jensen to include storing the generated data contract in a database; and rendering the generated data contract for viewing by another data consumer in response to another request for access to the data resource as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for storing a service contract as a data structure indicative of a plurality of service contract lines, each service contract line having a status field attached to it indicative of a contractual status of the service contract line (Jensen [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Jensen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami in view of Izenson et al. (US 20230385248 A1, hereinafter Izenson).
As to Claim 6:
Narayanaswami discloses the computing system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose:
a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules (although Narayanaswami clearly teaches data contract retrieval [0105]; [0113]).
However, the analogous art Izenson does a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules (e.g. Izenson “metadata system 104 transforms data using data formatting rules. For example, metadata system 104 transforms data using data formatting rules to define the specific format, layout, or structure of data elements, such as converting dates to a standardized format or applying consistent naming conventions” [0105]; “metadata system 104 transforms data using data cleansing rules for removing or correcting inconsistencies” [0106]; “metadata system 104 transforms data using data mapping rules for establishing correspondences or mappings between data elements in different formats or systems, ensuring consistency or interoperability” [0111]). Narayanaswami and Izenson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in data access management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Izenson before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Izenson to include a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to automate and standardize the data transformation process enabling efficient data integration, data quality improvements, or supporting the overall data management and analytics initiatives (Izenson [0105]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Izenson to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As to Claim 20:
Narayanaswami discloses the at least one non-transitory CRM of claim 18, but does not specifically disclose:
a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules (although Narayanaswami clearly teaches data contract retrieval [0105]; [0113]).
However, the analogous art Izenson does a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules (e.g. Izenson “metadata system 104 transforms data using data formatting rules. For example, metadata system 104 transforms data using data formatting rules to define the specific format, layout, or structure of data elements, such as converting dates to a standardized format or applying consistent naming conventions” [0105]; “metadata system 104 transforms data using data cleansing rules for removing or correcting inconsistencies” [0106]; “metadata system 104 transforms data using data mapping rules for establishing correspondences or mappings between data elements in different formats or systems, ensuring consistency or interoperability” [0111]). Narayanaswami and Izenson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in data access management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Narayanaswami and Izenson before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Narayanaswami with the teachings of Izenson to include a first component includes metadata defining data format standardization and consistency rules as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to automate and standardize the data transformation process enabling efficient data integration, data quality improvements, or supporting the overall data management and analytics initiatives (Izenson [0105]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Narayanaswami and Izenson to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure.
Byrne (US 20080312990 A1)
Bell (US 20140258243 A1)
Kroutik (US 20190188411 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth Chang whose telephone number is (571)270-7530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-5:30pm 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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/KENNETH W CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
PNG
media_image1.png
35
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
08.07.2026
Prosecution Insights