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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 08/21/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1, 14 and 20
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 07/20/2026 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.
Applicant argues “first, the Polleri-Petukho combination fails to extract, from a file comprising a data product specification for the data product, a da product version associated with the existing build…”
Please see newly cited reference CHAMPLIN-SCHARFF.
Applicant argues “secondly, the Polleri-pletukow combination fails to execute automated testing of a modified build generated based on a user-specified…”
Please see newly cited reference Yang.
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 inventior 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 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.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polleri et
al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0336340 A1) in view of CHAMPLIN-SCHARFF et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0179659 A1) and further in view of Yang (Pub. No. US 2009/0150136 A1) and further in view of PETUKHOW et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/00075527 A1).
As to claim 1, Polleri discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving an existing build of a data product (build model) (paragraph 0008);
identifying a data product version associated with the existing build (existing model)
(paragraph 0008);
receiving a user-specified modification for the data product (user input data) (paragraph
0063);
in response to a user input, automatically determining a compatibility result for the
modification with the identified data product version, based on the existing build of the data
product (one or more parameters may be also discovered. The new parameters may be
incorporated into the existing model in an off-line mode. the machine learning application with
new parameters can be tested off-line and the results can be compared with previous result with existing parameters. If the new parameters outperform the existing parameters as compared
with ground-truth data, the learning application can be auto-promoted to production (paragraph
0013).
Polleri does not explicitly disclose extracting, from file comprising a data product specification for the data product, in response to the user input, executing automated testing in response to the determined compatibility result indicate of whether the modified build is backward-compatibility with the identified data product version, and in response to determined compatibility result being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product version.
CHAMPLIN-SCHARFF discloses extracting, from file comprising a data product specification for the data product (The “ground truth” includes in production specifications and can be extracted from know valid testing repository, e.g., GITtm version control system or rational Team Concert TM (RTC) work item and associated chang sets…) (paragraph 0027).
Yang discloses executing automated testing in response to the determined compatibility result indicate of whether the modified build is backward-compatibility with the identified data product version (however, such approach is pretty effective in the case of regression test, when a design is modify locally, or when s.DCP previously obtained is resused if the simulation with a same testbench should be repeated. In regression test where the back-ward capability is examined, most of tests are passed without detecting design errors….) (paragraph 0046).
PETUKHOW discloses in response to the determined compatibility result
being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data
product version (the action of the system are written to a journal, which is analyzed to further
identify the error, the system failure, any events that preceded the failure, any event indicative of
a conflict of applications, incorrect actions by an application...) (paragraph 0145). This
suggested the clam language in response to the determined compatibility result being a
negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product
version. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Polleri to include extracting, from file comprising a data product specification for the data product, in response to the user input, executing automated testing in response to the determined compatibility result indicate of whether the modified build is backward-compatibility with the identified data product version, and in response to determined compatibility result being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product version as disclosed by CHAMPLIN-SCHARFF, Yang and PETUKHOW in order to provide building and testing the software product.
As to claim 2, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user-specified
modification comprises one or more of: a modification of a schema; an addition, modification or
deletion of one or more tables; an addition, modification or deletion of one or more columns; an
addition, modification or deletion of one or more service level objectives (additional models
custom models can be selected and modified to solve the problem receive as the second input)
(paragraph 0065); an addition, modification or deletion of one or more service level indicators;
an addition, modification or deletion of one or more constraints; or an addition, modification or
deletion of one or more views.
As to claim 3, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises
determining the negative compatibility result by identifying that a table, column, service
level objective, constraint, or other object present in the existing build is removed by the
modification (the machine learning application with the new parameters can be tested off-line and
the result can be compared with previous result with parameters...) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 4, Pollari discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the negative
compatibility result further comprises determining that a non-null constraint, a range constraint
(constraints) (paragraph 0010), a foreign key constraint, or a value-list constraint is removed by
the modification.
As to claim 5, Pollari discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying
that a table, column, service level objective, constraint, or other object absent from the existing
build is added by the modification (adding new parameters) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 6, Pollari discloses the method of claim 1 wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying
that a table (schema) (paragraph 0011), column or other object is renamed by the modification.
As to claim 7, Pollari discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying
the existence of a record which would be invalid under the existing build but which is rendered
valid by the modification (one or more parameters may be also discovered. The new parameters may be incorporated into the existing model in an off-line mode the machine
learning application with new parameters can be tested off-line and the results can be compared
with previous result with existing parameters. If the new parameters outperform the existing
parameters as compared with ground-truth data, the learning application can be auto-promoted
to production (paragraph 0013) (promoted to production is valid parameters) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 8, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying
that a range associated with a range-based condition in the existing build is widened by the
modification (more parameters) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 9, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein triggering the failure event
further comprises either: outputting one or more error messages to a display; causing a build
pipeline of the data product to fail; outputting a recommendation to change a version number
based on the modification; or automatically creating a new version or branch of the data product
for the modification (feedback and adjustments) (paragraph 0008).
As to claim 10, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein triggering the failure
event further comprises outputting visual information to a user via a display and/or sending a
signal to an external system to cause feedback to be provided to the user, optionally wherein
the feedback comprises an alert and/or an email (feedback) (paragraph 0008).
As to claim 12, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the
compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying
that a column length and/or a column precision of a column in the existing build is reduced by
the modification (adjust the one or more variables) (paragraph 0081).
As to claim 12, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user input is a user
input to commit the modification to the data product (first user input) (paragraph 0063).
As to claim 13, Polleri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user input is the user
input specifying the modification for the data product (first user input) (paragraph 0063).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Polleri discloses a device,
comprising: a memory (tangible computer readable storage medium) (paragraph 0441)
comprising instructions (storing the basic programming) (paragraph 0041); and a processor
coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions that cause the processor
(executed by processor) (paragraph 0441) to perform operations.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason a to claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Polleri discloses a non-
transitory computer-readable storage medium (tangible computer readable storage medium)
(paragraph 0441) having instructions stored thereon (storing the basic programming)
Conclusion
5. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
