DETAILED ACTION
Application No. 19/165,173 filed on 09/15/2025 has been examined. In this Office Action, claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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.
Claim 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “said query,” “said objects,” and “said select query”, lines 9-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 either include the same limitation or are respective dependent claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “said query,” “said objects,” and “said select query”, lines 8-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, whereas claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, is directed to a method. A dependent claim must further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends and must be of the same statutory class as the claim upon which it depends. Accordingly, claim 11 improperly depends upon claim 1 while changing the statutory class of the claimed invention from a method to a computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claims 1, 12:
At Step 1:
Regarding with independent claims 1 and 12 recite providing an intermediate system having a client accessible interface, the intermediate system having a plurality of asset interfaces providing access to a plurality of data assets stored at different devices being hosted by different data providers; receiving select queries from a client, by said client accessible interface, for providing access to data assets; clustering, based on said query, at least a part of said plurality of asset interfaces into different objects;
providing, by one of said objects, data asset access to said client in accordance with said select query, wherein at least some of the provided data assets are hosted by different data providers and stored at different devices.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
The limitation of receiving a query, clustering, based on the query, at least a part of a plurality of asset interfaces into different objects, and providing, by one of the objects, access to a data asset in accordance with the query. These limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind or by a person using pen and paper, including observing information, evaluating the received query, identifying relevant interfaces, organizing the interfaces into groups, selecting an appropriate object, and providing access to the requested information. Such acts constitute observations, evaluations, judgments, and classifications, which are mental processes and therefore abstract ideas.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite additional elements of "client-accessible interface, intermediate system, plurality of asset interfaces, and devices” to perform steps. However, the limitations merely amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
The limitation of “providing an intermediate system having a client accessible interface, the intermediate system having a plurality of asset interfaces providing access to a plurality of data assets stored at different devices being hosted by different data providers” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
“providing an intermediate system having a client accessible interface, the intermediate system having a plurality of asset interfaces providing access to a plurality of data assets stored at different devices being hosted by different data providers” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regards with claims 2-4, “providing data asset is performed by utilizing combined asset interfaces clustered into one object, masking the data provider of each of said plurality of data assets from the client and determining at least one object having access to asset interfaces matching the query; providing, by said at least one object, access of data assets to said client”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the process of process of mental processes. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claims 5-7, “wherein, each object comprises a plurality of data asset interfaces being receptive to requests from said client, requesting, by said intermediate system, from at least one of said asset interfaces, information indicative of data assets associated to said query for clustering said data asset interfaces into at least one object based on said information, and wherein the step of providing data asset access is performed by at least one asset interface implementation realized by an asset object, wherein the asset object is implemented by one of said data providers”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the process of process of mental processes. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claims 8-11, “wherein the different data providers is a set of data providers, wherein the set of data providers is dynamic, selecting asset interfaces, each selected asset interface being associated to said select query; determining asset objects of each provider implementing said asset interface for forming asset interface implementations; and clustering asset interface implementations or asset interfaces into at least one object, and providing data asset access comprises providing access to data assets directly from databases and/or data models of each data provider and a computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more control circuitry of a system, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the method of claim 1”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the process of process of mental processes. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In view of applicant claim limitations it is not clear if system include definitive hardware or physical components. Applicant is suggested to insert – “memory and processor” in the claims to obviate this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Trocki et al (US 2022/0067002 A1) in view of Crabtree et al (US 10,861,014 B2) and further in view of Pugh et al (US 6,088,739).
As per claim 1, Trocki teaches a computer-implemented method for handling data assets of different data providers, the method comprising: providing an intermediate system having a client accessible interface (paragraphs [0015], [0022], [0032], FIG. 1: gateway system 140 is communicatively coupled between client device 150 and services 125a-b through network 105, wherein client device 150 communicates queries through the query-language/API architecture; wherein the claimed intermediate system corresponds to gateway system 140 and the claimed client accessible interface corresponds to the query-language/API interface through which client device 150 submits queries); the intermediate system having a plurality of asset interfaces providing access to a plurality of data assets stored at different devices (paragraphs [0026], [0029]-[0030], FIGS. 1-2, claim 4: gateway system 140 receives service schemas 202a and 202b corresponding respectively to services 125a and 125b, wherein each schema describes the type, fields, and organization of data available from the corresponding service, and wherein the services may execute on two or more different host systems 110a-b having respective data stores 130a-b; wherein the claimed asset interfaces correspond to the service interfaces represented by service schemas 202a-b, the claimed data assets correspond to the data accessible through services 125a-b, and the claimed different devices correspond to host systems 110a-b and/or their associated data stores 130a-b); receiving select queries from a client, by said client accessible interface, for providing access to data assets (paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0047]-[0050], FIGS. 5-6: receiving query request 502 from client device 150, identifying a type associated with the query request, and identifying a subset of the plurality of services comprising data associated with the identified type of query; wherein the claimed select query corresponds to query request 502 and the claimed client corresponds to client device 150); and providing data asset access to said client in accordance with said select query (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0049]-[0050], FIGS. 5-6: transmitting the query request to the identified service or subset of services, receiving responsive results, and aggregating returned results where appropriate for presentation to the client).
Trocki does not explicitly teach the plurality of data assets stored at different devices being hosted by different data providers.
However, Crabtree teaches the plurality of data assets stored at different devices being hosted by different data providers (col. 2, lines 10-25, 46-53, a system providing a marketplace for providers of data resources, wherein the system permits providers to retain their data on their own networks and continue to use and update that data while providing access through the intermediary system and additionally describes a provider having a specialty dataset gathered for that provider's own needs and stored on the provider's network, with access being sold while the data remains on the provider network. wherein different data providers correspond to the data providers, hosted by different data providers corresponds to the data being served from each provider's own network, and stored at different devices corresponds to those separate provider networks).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Crabtree with the teachings of Trocki in order to let each provider keep and continue updating a single current copy of its data on its own network while still offering it through the system (Crabtree).
Trocki and Crabtree do not explicitly teach clustering, based on said query, at least a part of said plurality of asset interfaces into different objects.
However, Pugh teaches clustering, based on said query, at least a part of said plurality of asset interfaces into different objects (col. 5, lines 48-67–col. 6, lines 1-17; FIG. 3, specifically FIG. 3 illustrates composite object 301 containing cluster object 302 and role objects 303 and 304, together exposing registered interfaces 305-310 and further see cols. 28-30, FIGS. 15-16, discloses the search method of a role list object setting that list to contain all roles corresponding to the interface identifier m_iid 1610, a cluster list is created using operator of a cluster list object designating the interface ID, so that role list 1510 holds only the matching interfaces drawn from several component objects. wherein clustering corresponds to the search method collecting the matching interfaces into role list 1510, asset interfaces correspond to the role interfaces, different objects correspond to the separate role lists built for different identifiers, and based on said query corresponds to the designated interface identifier).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pugh with the teachings of Trocki as modified by Crabtree in order to gather, at call time, only the interfaces matching a designated identifier into one object that the client invokes without knowing its internal composition (Pugh).
As per claim 2, wherein the step of providing data asset is performed by utilizing combined asset interfaces clustered into one object (col. 7, lines 9-24; FIG. 3, teaches composite object 301, also identified as a cluster, comprising cluster object 302 and role objects 303 and 304, wherein the role objects provide multiple interfaces 307-310 exposed through the composite object, Pugh).
As per claim 3, masking the data provider of each of said plurality of data assets from the client (col. 27, lines 1-7; claims 3 and 6: the exchange being conducted through blockchain mechanism 3205 to allow for transaction security and anonymity of the provider and the user. wherein masking the data provider from the client corresponds to the anonymity of the provider afforded by blockchain mechanism 3205, Crabtree).
As per claim 4, wherein the step of providing data asset access comprises: determining at least one object having access to asset interfaces matching the query (paragraphs [0041], [0049], FIG. 6 block 630: matching query request 502 to the entries of query routing data structure 402 that correspond to that type of query. wherein determining asset interfaces matching the query corresponds to matching the query request against query routing data structure 402, Trocki);providing, by said at least one object, access of data assets to said client. (Trocki ¶0042-0043, FIG. 5 steps 3-4: transmitting query request 502 to service 125a using the address information in the matched entry and receiving the corresponding task results. wherein providing access of data assets to said client corresponds to transmitting the query request via the matched entry and returning the results, Trocki)
As per claim 5, wherein each object comprises a plurality of data asset interfaces being receptive to requests from said client (col. 6, ll. 1-17; FIG. 3, teaches that a composite object comprises a cluster object and one or more role objects, wherein each role object provides one or more role interfaces exposed through the composite object, Pugh).
As per claim 6, requesting, by said intermediate system, from at least one of said asset interfaces, information indicative of data assets associated to said query (paragraphs [0029]-[0033], FIGS. 2-3 and 7: gateway system 140 requests/receives service schemas from corresponding services, wherein each service schema identifies the organization, types, and fields of data associated with its respective service and is subsequently used to associate services with corresponding query types, Trocki), clustering said data asset interfaces into at least one object based on said information (col. 6, ll. 6-17; FIG. 3, teaches that its clustering mechanism dynamically adds role objects and their corresponding role interfaces to composite objects, Pugh).
As per claim 7, wherein the step of providing data asset access is performed by at least one asset interface implementation realized by an asset object (paragraphs [0025]-[0030], [0042]-[0043], FIGS. 1-2: services 125a-b execute on corresponding host systems, implement the functionality represented by their respective service schemas/interfaces, receive routed requests, and provide corresponding results; wherein the claimed asset object corresponds to the executable service and the claimed asset interface implementation corresponds to the service's implementation of its corresponding interface/schema, Trocki). wherein the asset object is implemented by one of said data providers (col. 2, lines 46-53, teaches a provider having a specialty dataset generated for its own purposes and stored on the provider's network, wherein the provider makes the data available while continuing to maintain it on its own network, Crabtree).
As per claim 8, wherein the different data providers is a set of data providers, wherein the set of data providers is dynamic (see rejection of claim 1 above wherein the set of data providers corresponds to the set of providers established under Crabtree).
As per claim 9, wherein the method comprises, prior to clustering: selecting asset interfaces, each selected asset interface being associated to said select query (paragraphs [0033], [0047]-[0050], FIGS. 6-7: associating services/service schemas with corresponding query types and selecting the subset of services/interfaces associated with the type of the received query, Trocki); and determining asset objects of each provider implementing said asset interface for forming asset interface implementations (paragraphs [0026], [0029]-[0030], FIG. 2: each service schema/interface corresponds to and is provided by an executable service, and routing information identifies the service associated with the interface; wherein the claimed asset object corresponds to the corresponding executable service, Trocki). clustering said asset interface implementations or asset interfaces into at least one object (col. 20, lines 1-13, teaches that the attach method attaches a role object to a composite object, and, once attached, the role interfaces of the attached role object become part of the composite object. The attach method adds an entry for the role object to m_role_objects 1004 and corresponding entries for the role object's interfaces to m_roles 1003, Pugh).
As per claim 10, providing access to data assets directly from databases and/or data models of each data provider (see description of claim 3 and col. 28, lines 5-18, teaches live/changing provider data located on the provider's network and accessed while remaining on that network. Crabtree further expressly recites that such provider data may be available in multiple data models, Crabtree).
As per 11, a computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more control circuitry of a system, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the method of claim 1 ([0072], e.g., Data storage device 1018 may include a computer-readable storage medium 1028 on which may be stored one or more sets of instructions 1025 that may include instructions for a routing structure generation component, Trocki).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Wright et al US 20240220083 A1 discloses a set of strategies to a subset of the set of views of the user interfaces to generate a set of groupings of user interfaces. Each strategy of the set of strategies indicates one or more rules for identifying user interfaces. The method further includes determining whether a specified one of the groupings of the set of groupings is associated with a first user interface of the user interfaces. The method further includes in response to determining that the specified grouping is associated with the first user interface, generating an application strategy based on the set of strategies.
Buxton et al US 6093215 discloses a component customization and distribution system in an object oriented environment provides a template builder utility which enables a base component to be selectively modified and the modifications to the base component stored as a template. The template builder utility enables selection of a base component, modification to the state of persistent data of the base component, storing of the modifications to the persistent data of the base component into a template format, and user-password locking of the template. The template builder utility further enables generation of user-defined instructions as part of the template and generation of a template distribution pack. The distribution pack includes a self-executing installation program which installs any templates contained within the distribution pack on a recipient component system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights