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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 02/04/2025, in which claims 1-10 are presented for the examination. Claim s 9-10 have been cancelled, claims 1-8 remain pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2025, 03/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/04/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-5 discloses (R2) RML, (R2) RML processor device, (R2) RML debugger device respectively. It is not clear whether R2 is referred for RML or debugger device or a processor device.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
acquiring an input file to be transformed into the graph
acquiring a mapping file comprising transformation instructions;
executing the transformation instructions;
checking whether a predetermined condition is satisfied for the transformation instruction or its result;
executing an operation or outputting the instruction/result depending on the condition; and
debugging the mapping file in correspondence to the input file.
These limitations describe collecting data, analyzing the data and outputting results of the analysis, which fall within the category of mental processes, i.e., concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The additional elements include:
a mapping process;
an input file;
a mapping file;
an output file;
These elements merely represent generic computer components performing routine data processing functions, such as receiving data, executing instructions, analyzing conditions and outputting results.
The claim does not improve functioning of a computer, improve another technology or technical field or apply abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a computer environment.
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitations-such as acquiring files, executing instructions, checking conditions and outputting results- are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. The elements of the claim simply implement the abstract idea using generic computer functionality.
Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savov (US 2012/0246519).
As per claim 1, Savov discloses a method for finding and erasing errors within a mapping process, transforming an input file into a graph using a transformation instruction written in a graph mapping language and saving the graph in an output file (abstract, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
acquiring the input file to be transformed into the graph by the mapping process (Fig. 5, source data object 510, target data object 520, [0019], 510 and 520 is considered claimed input file);
acquiring a mapping file written in the graph mapping language and comprising a plurality of transformation instructions for transformations of the input file by the mapping process (Fig. 5, mapping module 540, [0020], [0021], A suitable predefined mapping rule can be chosen manually or automatically by mapping module 540 from a set of predefined mapping rules 530. In one embodiment, a mapping rule is chosen from predefined mapping rules 530 based on the data structures of the source data object 510 and the target data object 520 to be mapped);
executing the transformation instruction in an order specified by the mapping file ([0017], The predefined mapping rule defines the relationship between the source data object and the target data object);
checking whether a predetermined condition is satisfied for the particular transformation instruction to be executed and/or the result of the execution; and (Fig. 5, debugging module 550, [0021], Debugging checks whether the available predefined mapping rules can perform the data transformation as claimed);
executing a predetermined operation and/or outputting the transformation instruction executed and/or the result and/or the output file in dependence on the condition; and (Fig. 3, 340-360, [0018], transformation executed as claimed, Fig. 6, output device 625, [0024], the results of the execution as output);
debugging the mapping file in correspondence to the input file (Fig. 3, step 330-350, [0018]-[0020]).
As per claim 2, Savov discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation determines a breakpoint at which the execution of the transformation instructions is interrupted (Fig. 3, step 330-350, [0018]-[0020]).
As per claim 6, Savov discloses the method according claim 1, further comprising using an artificial intelligence to determine the predetermined operation and/or whether a transformation instruction fulfilling the condition is changed ([0002], Algorithms are used).
As per claim 7, Savov discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising, in the event of fulfillment of the predetermined condition, providing a prompt at a human-machine interface, by which the transformation instruction causing at least the condition can be changed (Fig. 3, step 330, [0018], breakpoint is toggled by clicking the right mouse button over the mapping requiring debugging and choosing a command from a context menu, providing context menu, where condition can changed as claimed).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savov in view of Bartlett et al. (US 2016/0063271, referred herein after Bartlett).
As per claim 3, Savov does not specifically discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the graph mapping language comprises (R2) RML;
However, Bartlett discloses the graph mapping language comprises (R2) RML ([0024], One example of a mapping language is the D2RQ mapping language. However, other mapping languages are applicable as well);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Bartlett’s method of access control to unprotected data storage system endpoints to Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve interoperability with other mapping languages and tools enhancing the functionality and usability of knowledge graphs.
As per claim 4, Savov does not specifically discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the mapping process comprises an (R2) RML processor device performing the execution;
However, Bartlett discloses an (R2) RML processor device performing the execution ([0024], [0026], Fig. 9, 904);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Bartlett’s method of access control to unprotected data storage system endpoints to Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve interoperability with other mapping languages and tools enhancing the functionality and usability of knowledge graphs.
As per claim 5, Savov discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein checking whether the predetermined condition is fulfilled and/or the execution of the operation is performed by an (R2) RML debugger device connected to the (R2) RML processor device via a communication interface (Fig. 5, system 500 comprising debugging module 550 (ie debugger device) connected to communication interface via network communicator 635 of Fig. 6, [0021], [0024]).
As per claim 8, Savov does not discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising storing individual triples, characterizing the graph of the output file in a serialized form in said output file;
However, Bartlett discloses storing individual triples, characterizing the graph of the output file in a serialized form in said output file ([0020], [0024], [0027], output file stored);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Bartlett’s method of access control to unprotected data storage system endpoints to Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve interoperability with other mapping languages and tools enhancing the functionality and usability of knowledge graphs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Newman teaches a method accessing a semantic map between a schema of a relational database (RDB) and a resource description framework (RDF) data model.
Scott teaches a method for information security identifying users who are likely to have unauthorized access to secure data assets in an organizational computer network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114