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 .
This application claims priority and benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/650,378, filed May 21, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Abstract
The Abstract filed on 05/20/2025 has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 05/20/2025 have been considered as to the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No.19/214,010 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference co-pending Application. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 1 of the instant application to acquire telemetry associated with the first data flow; and dynamically reconfigure the data processing pipeline based at least in part on the telemetry associated with the first data flow, in order to allow the user to have finer control over the data segmentation step, for example, to balance the granularity of the data segments with the resource limitations of the data processing pipeline and/or with the data objectives or requirements of the processing system or application intended to consume the resulting vector embeddings.
Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims in the co-pending application and would achieve the same result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Application (19/214,004)
Co-Pending Application (19/214,010)
1. A method of constructing a data processing pipeline, comprising:
receiving one or more configuration inputs indicating at least an input data source and an output data source;
configuring a data flow, including one or more data operations, based at least in part on the input data source and the output data source;
retrieving data from the input data source;
processing the data based on the one or more data operations; and
emitting the processed data to the output data source.
1. A method of data management, comprising:
retrieving data from an input data source;
processing the data through a data processing pipeline that includes one or more data operations representing a first data flow;
acquiring telemetry associated with the first data flow;
dynamically reconfiguring the data processing pipeline based at least in part on the telemetry associated with the first data flow; and
emitting the processed data to an output data source.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Application (19/214,004)
Co-Pending Application (19/214,010)
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: selecting the one or more data operations for inclusion in the data flow based on the input data source and the output data source.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: determining an order for performing the one or more data operations in the data flow based on the input data source and the output data source.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: selecting the data flow from a plurality of preconfigured data flows based on the input data source and the output data source.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: determining the data flow based on a machine learning model trained to infer the one or more data operations from the input data source and the output data source.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more configuration inputs further indicates a system or application configured to consume the processed data.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying a representation of the data flow on a user interface; receiving user input associated with the representation of the data flow displayed on the user interface; and reconfiguring the data flow based on the received user input.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: adding a data operation to the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the added data operation.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: removing a data operation from the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the removed data operation.
10. The method of claim 7, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: reordering the one or more data operations in the data flow, the user input indicating the reordered data operations.
11. The method of claim 7, further comprising: training a machine learning model to infer the reconfigured data flow from the input data source and the output data source responsive to receiving the user input.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the telemetry indicates a success or failure of at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating a notification responsive to receiving the telemetry indicating a failure of the at least one data operation.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the telemetry indicates a time of entry or exit for at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the telemetry indicates a duration of at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the dynamic reconfiguring of the data processing pipeline comprises: determining that the duration of the at least one data operation exceeds a threshold duration; and invoking a second data flow in the data processing pipeline responsive to determining that the duration of the at least one data operation exceeds the threshold duration.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the second data flow allocates additional resources for the data processing pipeline.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein the dynamic reconfiguring of the data processing pipeline comprises: determining that the duration of the at least one data operation is below a threshold duration; and invoking a second data flow in the data processing pipeline responsive to determining that the duration of the at least one data operation is below the threshold duration.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the second data flow deallocates resources for the data processing pipeline.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving user input indicating one or more conditions for reconfiguring the data processing pipeline, the data processing pipeline further being reconfigured based on the telemetry indicating that the one or more conditions are satisfied.
As to claim 12, one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the independent claim 12 of the instant application to acquire telemetry associated with the first data flow; and dynamically reconfigure the data processing pipeline based at least in part on the telemetry associated with the first data flow, in order to allow the user to have finer control over the data segmentation step, for example, to balance the granularity of the data segments with the resource limitations of the data processing pipeline and/or with the data objectives or requirements of the processing system or application intended to consume the resulting vector embeddings.
Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims in the co-pending application and would achieve the same result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Application (19/214,004)
Co-Pending Application (19/214,010)
12. A data orchestration system comprising:
a processing system; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system, causes the data orchestration system to:
receive one or more configuration inputs indicating at least an input data source and an output data source;
configure a data flow, including one or more data operations, based at least in part on the input data source and the output data source;
retrieve data from the input data source;
process the data based on the one or more data operations; and
emit the processed data to the output data source.
11. A data orchestration system comprising:
a processing system; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system, causes the data orchestration system to:
retrieve data from an input data source;
process the data through a data processing pipeline that includes one or more data operations representing a first data flow;
acquire telemetry associated with the first data flow;
dynamically reconfigure the data processing pipeline based at least in part on the telemetry associated with the first data flow; and
emit the processed data to an output data source.
Claims 13-20 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Application (19/214,004)
Co-Pending Application (19/214,010)
13. The data orchestration system of claim 12, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: selecting the data flow from a plurality of preconfigured data flows based on the input data source and the output data source.
14. The data orchestration system of claim 12, wherein the configuring of the data flow comprises: determining the data flow based on a machine learning model trained to infer the one or more data operations from the input data source and the output data source.
15. The data orchestration system of claim 12, wherein the one or more configuration inputs further indicates a system or application configured to consume the processed data.
16. The data orchestration system of claim 12, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the data orchestration system to: display a representation of the data flow on a user interface; receive user input associated with the representation of the data flow displayed on the user interface; and reconfigure the data flow based on the received user input.
17. The data orchestration system of claim 16, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: adding a data operation to the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the added data operation.
18. The data orchestration system of claim 16, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: removing a data operation from the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the removed data operation.
19. The data orchestration system of claim 16, wherein the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: reordering the one or more data operations in the data flow, the user input indicating the reordered data operations.
20. The data orchestration system of claim 16, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the data orchestration system to: train a machine learning model to infer the reconfigured data flow from the input data source and the output data source responsive to receiving the user input.
12. The data orchestration system of claim 11, wherein the telemetry indicates a success or failure of at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
13. The data orchestration system of claim 12, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the data orchestration system to: generate a notification responsive to receiving the telemetry indicating a failure of the at least one data operation.
14. The data orchestration system of claim 11, wherein the telemetry indicates a time of entry or exit for at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
15. The data orchestration system of claim 11, wherein the telemetry indicates a duration of at least one data operation of the one or more data operations.
16. The data orchestration system of claim 15, wherein the dynamic reconfiguring of the data processing pipeline comprises: determining that the duration of the at least one data operation exceeds a threshold duration; and invoking a second data flow in the data processing pipeline responsive to determining that the duration of the at least one data operation exceeds the threshold duration.
17. The data orchestration system of claim 16, wherein the second data flow allocates additional resources for the data processing pipeline.
18. The data orchestration system of claim 15, wherein the dynamic reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: determining that the duration of the at least one data operation is below a threshold duration; and invoking a second data flow in the data processing pipeline responsive to determining that the duration of the at least one data operation is below the threshold duration.
19. The data orchestration system of claim 18, wherein the second data flow deallocates resources for the data processing pipeline.
20. The data orchestration system of claim 11, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the data orchestration system to: receive user input indicating one or more conditions for reconfiguring the data flow, the data flow further being reconfigured based on the telemetry indicating that the one or more conditions are satisfied.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 12:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The limitation “configuring…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “
“receiving…; retrieving…”, amount to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“processing…; emitting…” represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“a memory; a processing system; a data orchestration system” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
“receiving…; retrieving…”. These are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
“processing…; emitting…”. This is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … 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)”.
“a memory; a processing system; a data orchestration system”, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstractidea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Accordingly, claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2-6 and 10, recite the limitations, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. The context of the claim encompasses one can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 7-9, recite the limitations, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). And the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and the additional limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 13-15 and 18, recite the limitations, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. The context of the claim encompasses one can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 16-17 and 19, recite the limitations, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). And the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and the additional limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12: the claims recite the limitations “configuring a data flow…; processing the data …”, which render the claims indefinite because the claims provide no guidance as to how the limitations are performed/processed. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant is suggested to clarify the claims based on the novelty of the invention.
- All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as their based claim as above.
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, 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 1-3, 5-6, 12 and 15 are rejected under as being unpatentable over Rajanna et al., (US 2023/0385285), hereinafter “Rajanna”, in view of Seetharaman et al., (US 11,526,338), hereinafter “Seetharaman”.
Claim 1, Rajanna discloses a method of constructing a data processing pipeline, comprising:
- receiving one or more configuration inputs indicating at least an input data source and an output data source (par. [0027], specifying at least a particular input data source, a particular data transformation process, and a particular output data destination, in which the particular output destination of a first workflow among the two or more workflows references the particular data input of the second workflow among the two or more workflows, the first workflow and second workflow thereby being cross-referential; the method further comprising storing the output data associated with the first workflow transiently for use as input to the second workflow);
- configuring a data flow, including one or more data operations, based at least in part on the input data source and the output data source (par. [0033]-[0036], and [0048], a workflow pattern specifies one or more input locations such as the source data; an input type for each of the one or more input locations; one or more data transformations or other processing logic; one or more output locations such as sink data or a destination stream; an output type for each of the one or more input locations; a processing engine to invoke; and one or more parameter values that identify and/or control how the process engine executes an element of a pipeline represented in the workflow pattern); and
- retrieving data from the input data source (par. [0058], each of the workflows specifying at least a particular input data source, a particular data transformation process, and a particular output data destination, in which the particular output destination of a first workflow among the two or more workflows references the particular data input of the second workflow among the two or more workflows, the first workflow and second workflow thereby being cross-referential).
However, Rajanna does emit the processed data to the output data source.
Meanwhile, Seetharaman discloses processing the data based on the one or more data operations (col.28, lines 45-58, perform transformation and generate outputs, wherein each pipeline step can have a number of input data sets and a number of output data sets, generally described by pipeline step parameters, wherein the processing order of operations in the pipeline is defined by binding the output pipeline step parameters from a preceding pipeline step to a subsequent pipeline step); and
- emitting the processed data to the output data source (col.5, lines 36-45, col.7, lines 30-48 and col.31, lines 33-45, produce an output data prepared in a format or organization (projection) for use with one or more output HUBs to define a processing pipeline, having a plurality of stages or semantic actions, each of which corresponds to a function such as, for example, one or more of filtering, joining, enriching, transforming, or fusion of an input data, for preparation as an output data, wherein the dataflow software application, or dataflow application, representing a data flow in, e.g., DFML, wherein the system supports a declarative pipeline design that can use a same code base (e.g., with a Spark runtime platform) for both batch (historical) and real time (streaming) data processing; and also supports the building of pipelines or applications that can operate on real time date streams, for real time data analytics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rajanna to emit the processed data to the output data source for the purpose of maintaining a clean data pipeline so that the processed data become available for downstream use.
Claim 2, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Seetharaman discloses the configuring of the data flow comprises: selecting the one or more data operations for inclusion in the data flow based on the input data source and the output data source (col.12, lines 38-67, design dataflow applications, define data flows and define data for data flow processing).
Claim 3, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Seetharaman discloses the configuring of the data flow comprises: determining an order for performing the one or more data operations in the data flow based on the input data source and the output data source (col.5, lines 55-67, determining possible transformations of the data flow in subsequent applications and decomposing the data flows into a model describing transformations of data, predicates, and business rules applied to the data, and attributes used in the data flows).
Claim 5, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Seetharaman discloses the configuring of the data flow comprises: determining the data flow based on a machine learning model trained to infer the one or more data operations from the input data source and the output data source (col.32, lines 15-67 and col.33, lines 1-67 and col.34, lines 1-48).
Claim 6, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Seetharaman discloses the one or more configuration inputs further indicates a system or application configured to consume the processed data (par. [0036], receiving a digitally stored workflow pattern that specifies at least an input data source, a data transformation process, an output data destination, a data quality assertion and a data quality source).
Claims 12 and 15, are systems for performing the method of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above. They are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under as being unpatentable over Rajanna in view of Seetharaman, and further in view of Mansfield (US 2007/0250762).
Claim 4, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed, except for selecting the data flow from a plurality of preconfigured data flows based on the input data source and the output data source.
Meanwhile, Mansfield discloses the configuring of the data flow comprises: selecting the data flow from a plurality of preconfigured data flows based on the input data source and the output data source (par. [0024], determining content processing required to achieve a desired result, phases of operation required to perform a desired content processing function based on starting content data are identified, the phases of operation includes (1) transforming starting content data to a format associated with a common meta-language, (2) performing transformations associated with the desired interpretation, and (3) encoding the transformed data, each of the identified phases is resolved into a data flow comprising one or more known data flow patterns, the data flow includes at least a portion of a data flow pipeline, resolving the data flow includes determining order, inter-relationships, and dependencies between the data flow patterns, and the data flow patterns are chosen from one or more preconfigured data flow patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Rajanna and Seetharaman to select the data flow from a plurality of preconfigured data flows based on the input data source and the output data source for the purpose of maintaining data integration thereby leveraging preconfigured flows tailored to the input and output sources, while avoiding redundant development and ensuring compliance and quality.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is system for performing the method of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above. It is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under as being unpatentable over Rajanna in view of Seetharaman, and further in view of Breeden et al., (US 11,886,440), hereinafter “Breeden”.
Claim 7, the combination of Rajanna and Seetharaman discloses the invention as claimed, except for displaying a representation of the data flow on a user interface and receiving user input associated with the representation of the data flow displayed on the user interface.
On the other hand, Breeden discloses displaying a representation of the data flow on a user interface (col.161, lines 48-67, an col.162, lines 1-15, obtain a first representation of a data flow, and convert the data flow into a logically equivalent representation); and
- receiving user input associated with the representation of the data flow displayed on the user interface (col.161, lines 48-67, an col.162, lines 1-15, to facilitate conversion of data flows between representations, the unified processing subsystem maintains information mapping each command within a query to a corresponding function within a data processing pipeline).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Rajanna and Seetharaman to display a representation of the data flow on a user interface for the purpose of improving user confidence and reducing errors.
The combination of Rajanna, Seetharaman and Breeden fails to reconfigure the data flow based on the received user input.
Meanwhile, Breeden discloses reconfigure the data flow based on the received user input (col.141, lines 13-67 and col.142, lines 1-35, during creation of the processing pipeline, the user can select certain user-selectable features on the interconnections to modify the processing pipeline).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Rajanna and Seetharaman to reconfigure the data flow based on the received user input for the purpose of facilitating a flexible use of processing elements among various compute operations.
Claim 8, the combination of Rajanna, Seetharaman and Breeden discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Breeden discloses the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: adding a data operation to the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the added data operation (col.141, lines 13-67 and col.142, lines 1-35, during creation of the processing pipeline, the user can select certain user-selectable features on the interconnections to modify the processing pipeline).
Claim 9, the combination of Rajanna, Seetharaman and Breeden discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Breeden discloses the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: removing a data operation from the one or more data operations, the user input indicating the removed data operation (col.141, lines 13-67 and col.142, lines 1-35, during creation of the processing pipeline, the user can select certain user-selectable features on the interconnections to modify the processing pipeline).
Claim 10, the combination of Rajanna, Seetharaman and Breeden discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Breeden discloses the reconfiguring of the data flow comprises: reordering the one or more data operations in the data flow, the user input indicating the reordered data operations (col.141, lines 13-67 and col.142, lines 1-35, during creation of the processing pipeline, the user can select certain user-selectable features on the interconnections to modify the processing pipeline).
Claim 11, the combination of Rajanna, Seetharaman and Breeden discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Seetharaman discloses training a machine learning model to infer the reconfigured data flow from the input data source and the output data source responsive to receiving the user input (col.32, lines 15-67 and col.33, lines 1-67 and col.34, lines 1-48).
Claims 16-20, claims 16-20 are systems for performing the method of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above. They are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. 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.
09/01/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights