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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19196125 filed 05/01/2025
claims foreign priority to GB2406260.6, filed 05/03/2024
Child data
None
Foreign data
Priority number
Date
Country code
Country
GB2406260.6
05/03/2024
GB
UNITED KINGDOM
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on 05/03/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
3. Drawing filed on 05/01/2025 is accepted for examination.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite “identifying an data product version associated with the existing build, in response to a user input, automatically determining a compatibility result of the modification with the identified data product version, based on the existing build of the data product ” which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 15 and 20, claim 1 recites a memory with instructions and a processor which executed the instruction and claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions which are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract idea.
The step of “receiving an existing build of a data product” is human activity.
The step of “receiving a user-specified modification for the data product” is human activity.
The limitation “in response to the determined compatibility result being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product version” is a data gathering and processing.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2 and 15, the limitation “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; 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” is only further defined what user-specified modification is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 3 and 16, the limitation “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” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 4 and 17, the limitation “determining the negative compatibility result further comprises determining that a non-null constraint, a range constraint, a foreign key constraint, or a value-list constraint is removed by the modification” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 5 and 18, the limitation “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” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 6, the limitation “determining the compatibility result further comprises determining a negative compatibility result by identifying that a table, column or other object is renamed by the modification” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 7, the limitation “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” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 8, the limitation “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” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 9, the limitation “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” is an additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 10, the limitation “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” further defined what triggering the failure further does and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 11, the limitation “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” which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 12, the limitation “the user input is a user input to commit the modification
to the data product” is user activity.
As to claim 13, the limitation “the user input is the user input specifying the
modification for the data product) is user activity.
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.
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 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); and
Polleri does not explicitly disclose in response to the determined compatibility result being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product version. 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 in response to the determined compatibility result being a negative compatibility result, triggering a failure event in relation to the identified data product version as disclosed by PETUKHOW in order to provide alert notification when the result is not comparable.
A s 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 test off-line and the result can be compared with previous result with parameters…) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 4, Polleri 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, Polleri 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, Polleri 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, Polleri 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) (paragraph 0041), that when executed by a processor (executed by processor) (paragraph 0441), cause the processor to perform operations.
Conclusion
6. 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