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 .
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, 9-11, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process which can be performed in the human mind.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10:
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10 recite a method—a process.
Claim 1:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites, in part: A method for validating a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment, comprising: parsing the test case to extract one or more configuration entries; analyzing the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions; assembling one or more prewritten modules together to form a test plan to perform the associated one or more functions.
These limitations recite a mental process. Give the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The limitation parsing the test case to extract one or more configuration entries is nothing more than breaking up a written test case into chunks and is a mental process (evaluation) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The limitation analyzing the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions is merely data analysis and is a mental process (evaluating) that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation assembling the one or more prewritten modules together to form a test plan can be performed entirely by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a computer programmer would be able to write or use pre-written code or scripts that are associated with certain functions, arrange the code to be run in a particular order and then put all of the code together in a written document. The entire claim could be performed without the use of a computer. As shown in para. [0067] of the specification, the test cases are user created and in para. [0068], the modules are Python code which can be written by a programmer.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations A method for validating a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment only amount to a generic link of use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. As shown above, the steps could easily be performed without the use of a processor or computer program.
The additional limitation receiving a test case from a client device amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The additional limitation storing validation results in a distributed collection to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing output data (see MPEP 2106.06(g)). The limitation to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes is merely the intended use of the data stored. Further, validating and testing the data pipeline with the test case amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment is well-known, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: [0017].
receiving a test case from a client device Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
storing validation results in a distributed collection to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 Additionally testing and validation of data pipelines is well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0001]. Further, distributed collections are well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification” para. [0038]. The limitation to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes is merely the intended use of the data stored and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claims 4 recites, in part: analyze the one or more configuration entries to determine the associated one or more functions. This limitation is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional element processing via a natural language processing algorithm does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The natural language processing algorithm is recited at a high-level and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. The additional element does not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional element does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as demonstrated in para. [0070]-[0071] of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 6:
Claim recites the additional limitations: establishing a connection between the client device, a relational data store, and a test plan repository configured to store the one or more prewritten modules. The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a computer. The computer is merely used as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional element does not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional element does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional: Receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II).
Claim 9:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
The limitation analyzing the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions, wherein the one or more configuration entries specify at least one of: a data source within the distributed computing environment, one or more transformations or calculations to be applied to data within the distributed computing environment, a target store where data from the distributed computing environment is loaded, and expected results for validating aspects of the data pipeline in the distributed computing environment is merely data analysis and is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind—making an observation and an evaluation. A person could easily read the list of configuration entries and make an analysis based on them
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 9 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The configuration entries can be viewed as nothing more than attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 9 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
The additional limitation wherein the validation results are stored in one node of a relational data store amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing output data (see MPEP 2106.06(g)). Further, validating and testing the data pipeline with the test case amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 Additionally testing and validation of data pipelines is well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0001].
Claims 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20:
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20 recite a computer system—a machine, manufacture.
Claim 11:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites, in part: parse the test case to extract one or more configuration entries; analyze the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions; assemble one or more prewritten modules together to form a test plan to perform the associated one or more functions.
These limitations recite a mental process. Give the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The limitation parse the test case to extract one or more configuration entries is nothing more than breaking up a written test case into chunks and is a mental process (evaluation) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The limitation analyze the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions is merely data analysis and is a mental process (evaluation) that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation assemble the one or more prewritten modules together to form a test plan can be performed entirely by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a computer programmer would be able to write or use pre-written code or scripts that are associated with certain functions, arrange the code to be run in a particular order and then put all of the code together in a written document. The entire claim could be performed without the use of a computer. As shown in para. [0067] of the specification, the test cases are user created and in para. [0068], the modules are Python code which can be written by a programmer.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements A computer system for validating a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to: do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the additional elements merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20.
The additional limitation receive a test case from a client device amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The additional limitation store validation results in a distributed collection to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing output data (see MPEP 2106.06(g)). The limitation to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes is merely the intended use of the data stored. Further, validating and testing the data pipeline with the test case amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
A computer system for validating a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to. The additional limitations are well-known, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: [0091] and [0093].
a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment is well-known, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: [0017].
receive a test case from a client device Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
store validation results in a distributed collection to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 Additionally testing and validation of data pipelines is well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0001]. Further, distributed collections are well-understood, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification” para. [0038]. The limitation to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes is merely the intended use of the data stored and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Claims 14, 16, 19, and 20:
The claims are rejected for similar reasons as claims 4, 6, 9, and 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
US 2023/0268068 A1 discloses validating data pipelines. US 9,047,414 B1, 10,642,721 B2, and US 10,114,738 B2 disclose creating test case scripts from natural language test cases. US 10,838,848 B2 discloses generating one or more test cases based a received one or more natural language strings.
Sundararaman et al., US 2021/0133087 A1 disclose validating a data pipeline in a distributed computing environment; receiving a test case from a client device; parsing the test case to extract one or more configuration entries; analyzing the one or more configuration entries to determine an associated one or more functions; and assembling the one or more prewritten modules together to form a test plan.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, storing validation results in a distributed collection to enable comparison operations across distributed nodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights