This action is in response to the amendments filed on 07/14/2026, in which claims 4-5, 9-10 have been cancelled, claims 11-13 have been newly added, claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 6-7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savov (US 2012/0246519) in view of Das et al. (US 10,984,046, referred herein after Das).
As per claim 1, Savov discloses a method for finding and erasing errors within a mapping process, saving the graph in an output file (abstract, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
Acquiring, by a processor, the input file to be transformed into the graph (Fig. 5, source data object 510, target data object 520, [0019], 510 and 520 is considered claimed input file);
acquiring, by a processor, 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, by a processor, 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);
displaying, by the processor or the debugger device, a current execution status (Fig. 3, step 330-350, [0018]-[0020]).
Savov does not specifically discloses transforming an input file of relational data into a graph for a graph database using a transformation instruction written in a graph mapping language;
However, Das discloses transforming an input file of relational data (Fig. 1, relational database 102) into a graph for a graph database (Fig. 1, graph database, 104) using a transformation instruction written in a graph mapping language (Fig. 1, abstract, mapping a relational database to a graph database);
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 Das’s mapping method of graph database and relational database into Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide query-friendly, relationship-rich graph, unlocking faster queries, richer analytics, and scalable, maintainable data models that relational databases struggle to deliver efficiently;
Neither Savov nor Das specifically discloses checking, by a debugger device connected to the processor, whether a predetermined condition is fulfilled;
if the predetermined condition is fulfilled, executing, by the debugger device, a predetermined operation that interrupts the transformation instruction;
However, Ten-Hove discloses checking, by a debugger device connected to the processor, whether a predetermined condition is fulfilled; (Col. 5, lines 52-65, debugging mechanism determines whether a breakpoint has been reached based on breakpoint and context information);
if the predetermined condition is fulfilled, executing, by the debugger device, a predetermined operation that interrupts the transformation instruction and (Col. 5, lines 60-65, when processing is halted, results generated up to that point are displayed through UI);
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 Ten-Hove’s breakpoint functionality into Das’s mapping method of graph database and relational database and Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide identification and correction of errors by permitting inspection of the transformation state and intermediate results before further transformation instructions are executed.
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 plurality of 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).
As per claim 11, Ten-Hove discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the current execution status includes highlighting sections in the input file and the mapping file against corresponding results in the graph (Col. 13, lines 46-67, lines 1-7, highlighting section of input /source file).
As per claim 12, Ten-Hove discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation determines a breakpoint at which the execution of the plurality of transformation instructions is interrupted; the method further comprising displaying results up to the breakpoint (Col. 5, lines 60-65, when processing is halted, results generated up to that point are displayed through UI).
As per claim 13, Das discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising storing results in the graph database (Col. 2, lines 29-44).
Claims 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savov in view of Hubauer et al. (US 2022/0292136, referred herein after Hubauer).
As per claim 3, Savov does not specifically disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the graph mapping language comprises R2RML and/or RML;
However, Hubauer discloses the graph mapping language comprises R2RML and/or RML ([0043], [0069], [0072], “RML” stands for “RDF Mapping Language”. RML is a generic mapping language);
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 Hubauer’s method for generating a digital representation into Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide compatibility, standardization, and interoperability across the user devices, with RDF serializations like TTL and N3.
As per claim 8, Savov does not disclose 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, Hubauer discloses storing individual triples, characterizing the graph of the output file in a serialized form in said output file ([0072], the generated representation of the processed asset information is stored in a predefined file format. The predefined file format is compatible with a format used by the plurality of user devices 122A-N. For example, a predefined file format may be a Turtle (TTL) or n-triples (N3) serialization of RDF);
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 Hubauer’s method for generating a digital representation into Savov’s debugging data mappings method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide compatibility, standardization, and interoperability across the user devices.
Conclusion
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights