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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-13 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied; and
in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The computer amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting a computer nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied;” encompasses mentally a person determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied.
Next, “in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product.” encompasses mentally a person in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The mere nominal recitation of a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind 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 Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;
receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;
Next, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere checking data pipeline updates cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “wherein the data indicating the latest build for each upstream data product is published to a registry, and wherein receiving said data comprises reading it from said registry.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein the data indicating the latest build for each upstream data product is published to a registry, and wherein receiving said data comprises reading it from said registry. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “triggering a build of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends;” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person triggering a build of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends. Next, the limitation “upon completion of the build of the upstream data product, publishing data indicating said build to the registry.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person upon completion of the build of the upstream data product, publishing data indicating said build to the registry. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more user-defined update rules are published to a registry and wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises reading said update rules from the registry.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the step of determining whether the update condition is satisfied is triggered by either: build completion of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining whether the update condition is satisfied is triggered by either: build completion of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends. Next, the limitation “or a time-based trigger;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining or a time-based trigger. Next, the limitation “or an external trigger.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining or an external trigger. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “upon completion of the build of the downstream data product, publishing data about said build to a registry.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining upon completion of the build of the downstream data product, publishing data about said build to a registry. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the downstream data product is a composite data product dependent on a plurality of upstream data products.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the downstream data product is a composite data product dependent on a plurality of upstream data products. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise an update rule whose satisfaction is determined based on both: the time at which the latest build of an upstream data product finished;” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise an update rule whose satisfaction is determined based on both: the time at which the latest build of an upstream data product finished. Next, the limitation “and the time at which the latest build of the downstream data product finished.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the time at which the latest build of the downstream data product finished. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein said update rule satisfies the update condition if the latest build of the upstream data product finished more recently than the latest build of the downstream data product.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein said update rule satisfies the update condition if the latest build of the upstream data product finished more recently than the latest build of the downstream data product. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises either: a formula in propositional or first-order logic, wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises evaluating a truth-value of the formula;” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises either: a formula in propositional or first-order logic, wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises evaluating a truth-value of the formula. Next, the limitation “or a function, script, or subroutine coded in a programming language.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a function, script, or subroutine coded in a programming language. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises a logical combination of one or more freshness criteria and/or one or more data quality criteria.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises a logical combination of one or more freshness criteria and/or one or more data quality criteria. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein each freshness criterion specifies a property of, or relationship between, one or more of: the time at which the latest build of each of one or more upstream data products finished;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein each freshness criterion specifies a property of, or relationship between, one or more of: the time at which the latest build of each of one or more upstream data products finished. Next, the limitation “the time at which the latest build of each of one or more downstream data products finished;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the time at which the latest build of each of one or more downstream data products finished. Next, the limitation “a current time.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a current time. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise any one or more of: a rule satisfying the update condition if a scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise any one or more of: a rule satisfying the update condition if a scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished. Next, the limitation “a rule satisfying the update condition if the scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished successfully;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a rule satisfying the update condition if the scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished successfully. Next, the limitation “a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfies a respective user-specified freshness criterion;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfies a respective user-specified freshness criterion. Next, the limitation “or a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfy a respective user-specified data quality criterion.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining or a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfy a respective user-specified data quality criterion. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 14-19 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 14 recites a computing device and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 14 recites a device, comprising:
determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied; and
in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “device”, “a memory”, and “a processor” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting a “device”, “memory”, and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 14 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied;” encompasses mentally a person determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied.
Next, “in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product.” encompasses mentally a person in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The mere nominal recitation of a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind 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 Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites
a memory comprising instructions; and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;
receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;
Here, “a memory comprising instructions; and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:” encompasses amounts to mere generic computer components implementing an abstract idea.
Next, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 14 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere checking data pipeline updates cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 14 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “wherein the data indicating the latest build for each upstream data product is published to a registry, and wherein receiving said data comprises reading it from said registry.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein the data indicating the latest build for each upstream data product is published to a registry, and wherein receiving said data comprises reading it from said registry. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “triggering a build of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends;” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person triggering a build of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends. Next, the limitation “upon completion of the build of the upstream data product, publishing data indicating said build to the registry.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person upon completion of the build of the upstream data product, publishing data indicating said build to the registry. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more user-defined update rules are published to a registry and wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises reading said update rules from the registry.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the step of determining whether the update condition is satisfied is triggered by either: build completion of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends;” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining whether the update condition is satisfied is triggered by either: build completion of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends. Next, the limitation “or a time-based trigger;” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining or a time-based trigger. Next, the limitation “or an external trigger.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining or an external trigger. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises either: a formula in propositional or first-order logic, wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises evaluating a truth-value of the formula;” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises either: a formula in propositional or first-order logic, wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises evaluating a truth-value of the formula. Next, the limitation “or a function, script, or subroutine coded in a programming language.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a function, script, or subroutine coded in a programming language. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied; and
in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied;” encompasses mentally a person determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied.
Next, “in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product.” encompasses mentally a person in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product. The mere nominal recitation of a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind 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 Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;
receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;
Here, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:” amounts to mere generic computer components implementing an abstract idea.
Next, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 20 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere checking data pipeline updates cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends;” and “receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6-16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0284057; hereinafter: Deutsch) in view of Non-Patent Publication (Wang et al., “Data updating method, data updating system and storage medium of data table”, 2023; hereinafter: Wang)
Claims 1, 14, and 20
As to claims 1, 14, and 20, Deutsch disclose a device, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions (paragraph[0116], the reference describes a memory.); and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (paragraph[0115], the reference describes using a processor.):
receiving a data product definition for a downstream data product, wherein the data product definition identifies one or more upstream data products on which the downstream data product depends (paragraph[0062], the reference describes a dependency graph (i.e., a data product definition, as claimed) of upstream and downstream data.);
receiving data indicating a latest build for each upstream data product (paragraph[0062], the reference describes receiving data updates.);
Deutsch doses not appear to explicitly disclose determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied; and
in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product.
However, Wang discloses determining, based on the received data and one or more user-defined update rules for the downstream data product, whether an update condition is satisfied (page 11 of PDF, the reference describes updating downstream codes based on conditions and the upstream datasets.); and
in accordance with a determination that the update condition is satisfied, triggering a build of the downstream data product (page 11 of PDF, the reference describes updating downstream codes based on conditions and the upstream datasets. The data downstream is updated when the condition is meet.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Deutsch with the teachings of Wang to determine when to update downstream data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Deutsch with the teachings of Wang to efficiently update system data by taking out data from a message queue (Wang: page 3).
Claims 2 and 15
As to claims 2 and 15, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein the data indicating the latest build for each upstream data product is published to a registry, and wherein receiving said data comprises reading it from said registry (paragraph[0077], the reference describes the upstream data being stored in files (i.e., a registry, as claimed).
Claims 3 and 16
As to claims 3 and 16, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose triggering a build of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends (paragraph[0031], the reference describes using building upstream and updating data downstream.); and
upon completion of the build of the upstream data product, publishing data indicating said build to the registry (paragraph[0031] and paragraph[0077], the reference describes using building upstream and updating data downstream and storing it in a file (e.g., paragraph[0077]).).
Claims 5 and 18
As to claims 5 and 18, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein the step of determining whether the update condition is satisfied is triggered by either:
build completion of an upstream data product on which the downstream data product depends (paragraph[0006], the reference describes updating based on the completion of upstream data.); or
a time-based trigger; or an external trigger.
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose further comprising:
upon completion of the build of the downstream data product, publishing data about said build to a registry (paragraph[0031] and paragraph[0077], the reference describes using building upstream and updating data downstream and storing it in a file (e.g., paragraph[0077]).).
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein the downstream data product is a composite data product dependent on a plurality of upstream data products (Figure 3, paragraph[0094], the reference describes relation between the upstream and downstream data being together.).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise an update rule whose satisfaction is determined based on both: the time at which the latest build of an upstream data product finished (paragraph[0080], the reference determine the time of the updates.); and
the time at which the latest build of the downstream data product finished (paragraph[0081], the reference describes determining the time of a second update.).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein said update rule satisfies the update condition if the latest build of the upstream data product finished more recently than the latest build of the downstream data product (paragraph[0083]-paragraph[0085], the reference describes updating based on comparing the time periods of the first and second datasets.).
Claims 10 and 19
As to claims 10 and 19, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Wang further disclose wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises either:
a formula in propositional or first-order logic, wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises evaluating a truth-value of the formula; or
a function, script, or subroutine coded in a programming language (page 11 of PDF, the reference describes using a function. The Examiner interprets the claim as being optional of one limitation.).
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein at least one user-defined update rule comprises a logical combination of one or more freshness criteria and/or one or more data quality criteria(paragraph[0080], the reference determine the time of the updates (i.e., freshness, as claimed).).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein each freshness criterion specifies a property of, or relationship between, one or more of:
the time at which the latest build of each of one or more upstream data products finished (paragraph[0079], the reference describes recording the times of the updates.);
the time at which the latest build of each of one or more downstream data products finished(paragraph[0082], the reference describes recording the upstream and downstream builds.); and
a current time (paragraph[0083], the reference describes recording all update times.).
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Deutsch further disclose wherein the one or more user-defined update rules comprise any one or more of:
a rule satisfying the update condition if a scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished;
a rule satisfying the update condition if the scheduled build of each of the upstream data products has finished successfully;
a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfies a respective user-specified freshness criterion (page 11 of PDF, the reference describes updating the upstream data is withing a time period (i.e., freshness criterion). The Examiner interprets the claims as being optional and selecting one of the limitations because of the one or more element in the claim.); or
a rule satisfying the update condition if the latest build of each of the upstream data products satisfy a respective user-specified data quality criterion.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0284057; hereinafter: Deutsch) in view of Non-Patent Publication (Wang et al., “Data updating method, data updating system and storage medium of data table”, 2023; hereinafter: Wang) and further in view of Wookey et al. U.S. Patent (10,657,586; hereinafter: Wookey)
Claims 4 and 17
As to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Deutsch and Wang discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein the one or more user-defined update rules are published to a registry and wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises reading said update rules from the registry.
However, Wookey discloses wherein the one or more user-defined update rules are published to a registry and wherein determining whether the update condition is satisfied comprises reading said update rules from the registry (column 44, lines 44, the reference discloses storing customization information in a registry. The Examiner interprets the customization information as update conditions in Wang.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Deutsch with the teachings of Wang and Wookey to store update condition data in a registry which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Deutsch with the teachings of Wang and Wookey to efficiently implement privacy control over data (Wookey: column 2, lines 19-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights