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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/469,196 filed on 09/25/2025 in which claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27, 30, and 31 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 29, 32, and 33 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 33 recites "A computer-readable storage medium" and it appears that claimed language recited in the claim are not described in the specification as exclusively restricted to non-transitory tangible medium in a manner which enables it to act as a computer component to realize the computer program's functionality. Therefore, when the claims are interpreted broadly as transmission medium or signal, the claims appear to be non-statutory because they are not tangibly embodied in a manner so as to be executable. Applicant should add the “non-transitory" to the preamble. The remaining claims are rejected being dependent on the rejected claim above.
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, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 29, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1, 32, and 33 recite determining a target object read request for querying a first data structure, the target object read request comprising a target identifier of a target object; determining whether the association information between the first object and the second object is stored in a second data structure.
The limitations of determining…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “determining…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually determining target object comprising target identifier, determining whether association information between first object and second object is stored in data structure. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – determining…, providing…, generating…. The “determining” and “generating” limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “providing” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Determining” and “generating” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “providing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 2 recites wherein responsive to determining that there is no first object identifier associated with the target identifier in the first data structure, determining an object identifier using a fuzzy matching technique to determine a similarity score between the target identifier and an object identifier, and identifying the object identifier as being associated with the target identifier when the similarity score is above a threshold value. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining, identifying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 3 recites wherein after providing a response to the target object read request including the first object, the method further includes: performing validation that the first object corresponds with the target object. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 4 recites wherein the first and/or second data structures are graph structures; and/or wherein the first data structure is a business register, and wherein the business register comprises at least one canonical first object and a set of aliases associated with the at least one first object; and/or wherein the second data structure is in communication with the first data structure. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 7 recites wherein determining the first object identifier based on the target identifier comprises comparing the target identifier with the at least one canonical first object and/or the set of aliases associated with the at least one first object; and/or wherein the target identifier is extracted from an external data source. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining, comparing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 8 recites wherein determining the target object read request comprises: receiving the target object read request from a transaction reconciliation module; and providing the response to the target object read request comprises sending the response to the transaction reconciliation module to allow the transaction reconciliation module to reconcile a transaction using the first object. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving, providing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 11 recites wherein the first object and/or the second object is an entity object, and the target object identifier is a candidate entity attribute; and/or wherein the first object is a contact object; and/or wherein the second object is an organisation object. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 14 recites wherein determining whether the association information between the first object and the second object is stored in a second data structure, comprises: generating an association read request, the association read request comprising target association information between the first object and the second object, the target association information including first and second identifiers of the respective first and second objects; identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information; wherein responsive to no edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, determining no association information between the first object and the second object is stored in the second data structure; and responsive to one or more edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, determining association information between the first object and the second object is stored in the second data structure; and returning at least the first object; wherein identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information includes querying all edge tables in the second data structure that include at least the first identifier to determine if the edge tables contain the second identifier. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining, generating, identifying, returning, querying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 16 recites wherein the target association information includes a target association identifier indicating an association type, and wherein the target association identifier is a contact association type. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 18 recites responsive to association information being identified between the first object and the second object in the second data structure, providing a response containing the association information and the first entity object. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., providing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 19 recites wherein generating new association information indicative of the association between the first object and the second object includes: inferring that the first object is associated with the second object by an inferred association type based on the target object read request, wherein the inferred association type is a contact association type. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generating, inferring) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 21 recites wherein providing the association write request to the second data structure comprises: providing the association write request to a write interface in communication with the second data structure for writing to one or more tables of the second data structure; wherein providing the association write request to the write interface comprises: determining a plurality of association write requests to be written to a graph structure; collating the plurality of association write requests as a batch write request; and providing the batch write request to the write interface of a graph interface module. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., providing, determining, collating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 22 recites wherein the association write request includes a plurality of association write requests. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 24 recites writing the new association information to the second data structure by: determining first and second object keys from the respective first and second objects; and writing the first and second object keys to an edge table of the second data structure, the edge table being indicative of the association between the first object and the second object. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., writing, determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 25 recites wherein the first and second keys are extracted from first and second tables of the respective first and second objects. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 26 recites wherein the first object identifier and/or the second object identifier is an entity identifier, wherein the entity identifier is a string value. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 28 recites wherein the method further includes determining a target object based on a request from a user via a user interface. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 29 recites wherein the user interface is a user interface provided by an accounting platform. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 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 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 21, 22, 26, 28, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0062836; hereinafter “Mu”) in view of Lysne et at. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0154192; hereinafter “Lysne”) and further in view of Nicholson (U.S. PGPub 2004/0267795).
As per claims 1, 32, and 33, Mu discloses a method comprising: determining a target object read request for querying a first data structure, the target object read request comprising a target identifier of a target object; (See Fig. 1, paras. 14-15, 26-27, wherein a target of request in which “request can indicate a request for data to be read, data to be written, or some other data processing request. A request can indicate the type of operation (e.g., read, write), a target of the request (e.g., a logical storage object identifier), and an identifier of a requestor” [0015] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
determining a first object identifier of a first object in the first data structure based on the target identifier; (See Figs. 1-2, paras. 23, 26-27, 29, wherein data structure, features of filesystem request generator in which “filesystem request generator 103 also indicates the logical storage object identifier to travel with the filesystem request. The logical storage object identifier can travel with the filesystem request in different manners. For example, a filesystem generator can write the logical object identifier into metadata of the filesystem request. As another example, a filesystem generator creates a data structure and associates it with the filesystem” [0026] and “change propagator 109A then (or concurrently) creates the request with an identifier of the secondary logical storage object that has a full sync relationship with the primary logical storage object. The change propagator 109A creates this filesystem request with a different requestor as well. The change propagator 109A indicates the change propagator 109A as the requestor” [0029] are disclosed, also See paras. 14-15, 39, wherein requestor identifier in which “request can indicate the type of operation (e.g., read, write), a target of the request (e.g., a logical storage object identifier), and an identifier of a requestor” [0015] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
providing a response to the target object read request, wherein the response includes at least the first object; (See Table 1, Fig. 3, paras. 20, 47, wherein providing logical storage object in which “the primary node determines a combined response that is to be provided to the requestor of the write request received at block 302…. the combined response is determined based, at least in part, on the status of the write requests issued at blocks 304 and 306. Table 1 illustrates example combined responses according to aspects of the disclosure, where the combined response is based on possible outcomes of the requests issued” [0047] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
determining association information between the first object and a second object; (See paras. 20, 27, wherein node associated with primary logical storage object to a secondary logical storage object in which “ the target of the filesystem request has a sync relationship, the target of the filesystem request can be considered the primary logical storage object. As stated previously, the logical storage objects are identified by immutable identifiers that are exclusive at least across clusters that are associated with each other. The sync mappings, which may be indicated in one or more data structures, map the sync relationships across the levels or layers of the logical object or filesystem request target depending upon the logical object (e.g., file, LUN, etc.) and underlying filesystem” [0027] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
However, Mu fails to disclose determining whether the association information between the first object and the second object is stored in a second data structure; and responsive to no association information being identified between the first object and the second object in the second data structure.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches determining whether the association information between the first object and the second object is stored in a second data structure; (See Fig. 12, paras. 12, 86, 276-277, wherein determining whether first and second external object are associated with one another and data structures are disclosed, also See Table 1, Fig. 29, paras. 136, 139, 146, wherein data structures in which “the information may be stored in one or more data structures specifically configured to conserve storage space or increase data exchange performance” [0139] and “messages may include requests for the object network modeler 202 to populate a set of data structures, such as the data structures described further below with reference to FIG. 29. The messages may also include requests for the object network modeler 202 to execute queries against these data structures. In some embodiments, the object network modeler 202 is configured to process these API messages in response to receiving them” [0146] are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
and responsive to no association information being identified between the first object and the second object in the second data structure. (See Fig. 5, paras. 166, wherein no association with objects are disclosed, also See Fig. 12, paras. 27-28, 139, wherein data structures are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Lysne teachings in the Mu system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system of modeling object networks taught by Lysne in the Mu system for effective reconciliation in sync replication. In addition, both of the references (Mu and Lysne) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data updating. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Mu and Lysne fails to disclose generating new association information indicative of the association between a first entity object and a second entity object, the new association information including the first identifier of the first object and a second identifier of the second object; generating an association write request to write the new association information to the second data structure; providing the association write request to the second data structure.
On the other hand, Nicholson teaches generating new association information indicative of the association between a first entity object and a second entity object, the new association information including the first identifier of the first object and a second identifier of the second object; (See Figs. 9, 10, paras. 24, 68-69, wherein creating association between unit of information, target identifiers are disclosed; as taught by Nicholson.)
generating an association write request to write the new association information to the second data structure; (See paras. 21, wherein data structures associations are disclosed, also See Figs. 3, 5, 9, paras. 60, 64-69, wherein creating visual representation of association between pieces of information in which “A second workgroup member then creates a non-base document (N). At 930, the non-base document is updated within the context of the base document. A save command is issued at 935. At 940, a compound document object (C) is created and saved. An association is then created at 945 between C and B as a visual Pane 1” [0068] are disclosed; as taught by Nicholson.)
providing the association write request to the second data structure. (See paras. 21, wherein data structures associations are disclosed, also See Figs. 5, 9-10, paras. 60, 65-70, wherein creating visual representation of association between pieces of information in which “the navigation table 1140 contains metadata related to the multiway associations as opposed to individual associations. If the entities in such a multiway association comprise a series of parts or entities of an educational module, the metadata might contain information such as the course number, teaching assistant and other information related to the entities as a combination. This can result in a savings in storage space, and provides a cleaner and easier to update data structure (analogous to providing association write request).… The multi-way association uses a flag or other cardinal value to identify the target as being a collection of target identifiers” [0070] are disclosed; as taught by Nicholson.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Nicholson teachings in the combination of Mu and Lysne system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate dynamic personalized information organizer taught by Nicholson in the combination of Mu and Lynse system for effective reconciliation in sync replication. In addition, both of the references (Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data updating. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 2, the combination of Mu and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein responsive to determining that there is no first object identifier associated with the target identifier in the first data structure, determining an object identifier using a fuzzy matching technique to determine a similarity score between the target identifier and an object identifier, and identifying the object identifier as being associated with the target identifier when the similarity score is above a threshold value.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches wherein responsive to determining that there is no first object identifier associated with the target identifier in the first data structure, (See Fig. 5, paras. 166, wherein no association with objects are disclosed, also See Fig. 12, paras. 27-28, 139, wherein data structures are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
determining an object identifier using a fuzzy matching technique to determine a similarity score between the target identifier and an object identifier, (See Table1, paras. 181, 196, wherein fuzzy matching between objects in which “Forms the foundation for fuzzy matching between objects in the network or probe objects. Allows for maximum-recall similarity search via the direct dimension indices” [Table 1] are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
and identifying the object identifier as being associated with the target identifier when the similarity score is above a threshold value. (See Table1, paras. 181, 196, 260-261, wherein fuzzy matching between objects and similarity threshold limits in which “Forms the foundation for fuzzy matching between objects in the network or probe objects. Allows for maximum-recall similarity search via the direct dimension indices” [Table 1] are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 3, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein after providing a response to the target object read request including the first object, the method further includes: performing validation that the first object corresponds with the target object. (See Fig. 4, paras. 52-54, wherein check is made to determine written request operations are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 4, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein the first and/or second data structures are graph structures; and/or wherein the first data structure is a business register, and wherein the business register comprises at least one canonical first object and a set of aliases associated with the at least one first object; and/or wherein the second data structure is in communication with the first data structure. (See paras. 19, 22-25, wherein business data, multiple data structures and communication between various engines are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 7, the combination of Mu and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein determining the first object identifier based on the target identifier comprises comparing the target identifier with the at least one canonical first object and/or the set of aliases associated with the at least one first object; and/or wherein the target identifier is extracted from an external data source.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches wherein determining the first object identifier based on the target identifier comprises comparing the target identifier with the at least one canonical first object and/or the set of aliases associated with the at least one first object; and/or wherein the target identifier is extracted from an external data source. (See Fig. 2, paras. 86, 138, 145, wherein external object data store, external objects and external sources are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 8, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein determining the target object read request comprises: receiving the target object read request from a transaction reconciliation module; (See paras. 19, 49, 73-74, wherein reconciliation operations, data reconciliation are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
and providing the response to the target object read request comprises sending the response to the transaction reconciliation module to allow the transaction reconciliation module to reconcile a transaction using the first object. (See Fig. 7, paras. 19, 67, 73-74, wherein reconciliation operations, data reconciliation are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 11, the combination of Mu and Lysne fails to disclose wherein the first object and/or the second object is an entity object, and the target object identifier is a candidate entity attribute; and/or wherein the first object is a contact object; and/or wherein the second object is an organisation object. (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 12, 15, 22-23, wherein managing entities, storage elements are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
On the other hand, Nicholson teaches wherein the first object and/or the second object is an entity object, and the target object identifier is a candidate entity attribute; and/or wherein the first object is a contact object; and/or wherein the second object is an organisation object. (See Fig. 5, paras. 21-24, 54, 64, wherein organizational structures are disclosed; as taught by Nicholson.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 18, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses responsive to association information being identified between the first object and the second object in the second data structure, providing a response containing the association information and the first entity object. (See paras. 20, 27, wherein node associated with primary logical storage object to a secondary logical storage object in which “ the target of the filesystem request has a sync relationship, the target of the filesystem request can be considered the primary logical storage object. As stated previously, the logical storage objects are identified by immutable identifiers that are exclusive at least across clusters that are associated with each other. The sync mappings, which may be indicated in one or more data structures, map the sync relationships across the levels or layers of the logical object or filesystem request target depending upon the logical object (e.g., file, LUN, etc.) and underlying filesystem” [0027] are disclosed, also See Table 1, Fig. 3, para. 47, wherein providing logical storage object in which “the primary node determines a combined response that is to be provided to the requestor of the write request received at block 302…. the combined response is determined based, at least in part, on the status of the write requests issued at blocks 304 and 306. Table 1 illustrates example combined responses according to aspects of the disclosure, where the combined response is based on possible outcomes of the requests issued” [0047] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 21, the combination of Mu and Nicholson discloses wherein providing the association write request to the second data structure comprises: providing the association write request to a write interface in communication with the second data structure for writing to one or more tables of the second data structure; (See Table 1, Fig. 3, paras. 20, 47, wherein providing logical storage object in which “the primary node determines a combined response that is to be provided to the requestor of the write request received at block 302…. the combined response is determined based, at least in part, on the status of the write requests issued at blocks 304 and 306. Table 1 illustrates example combined responses according to aspects of the disclosure, where the combined response is based on possible outcomes of the requests issued” [0047] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
However, the combination of Mu and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein providing the association write request to the write interface comprises: determining a plurality of association write requests to be written to a graph structure; collating the plurality of association write requests as a batch write request; and providing the batch write request to the write interface of a graph interface module.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches wherein providing the association write request to the write interface comprises: determining a plurality of association write requests to be written to a graph structure; (See paras. 34, 38, 57, wherein associating objects with centroid to represent entities are disclosed, also See paras. 292-293, wherein write operations are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
collating the plurality of association write requests as a batch write request; (See paras. 55-56, 60-63, wherein batch operations are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
and providing the batch write request to the write interface of a graph interface module. (See paras. 55-56, 312, 334, wherein batch operations are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 22, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein the association write request includes a plurality of association write requests. (See Fig. 1, paras. 14-15, 26-27, wherein a target of request in which “request can indicate a request for data to be read, data to be written, or some other data processing request. A request can indicate the type of operation (e.g., read, write), a target of the request (e.g., a logical storage object identifier), and an identifier of a requestor” [0015] are disclosed, also See paras. 20, 27, wherein node associated with primary logical storage object to a secondary logical storage object are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 26, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein the first object identifier and/or the second object identifier is an entity identifier, wherein the entity identifier is a string value. (See paras. 15, 28-29, 39, wherein object identifiers are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
As per claim 28, the combination of Mu and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein the method further includes determining a target object based on a request from a user via a user interface.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches wherein the method further includes determining a target object based on a request from a user via a user interface. (See paras. 143-144, wherein graphical user interface are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
Claims 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0062836; hereinafter “Mu”) in view of Lysne et at. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0154192; hereinafter “Lysne”) and further in view of Nicholson (U.S. PGPub 2004/0267795) and further in view of Melo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0270571; hereinafter “Melo”).
As per claim 14, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson further discloses wherein determining whether the association information between the first object and the second object is stored in a second data structure, comprises: generating an association read request, the association read request comprising target association information between the first object and the second object, the target association information including first and second identifiers of the respective first and second objects; (See Figs. 1-2, paras. 23, 26-27, 29, wherein data structure, features of filesystem request generator in which “filesystem request generator 103 also indicates the logical storage object identifier to travel with the filesystem request. The logical storage object identifier can travel with the filesystem request in different manners. For example, a filesystem generator can write the logical object identifier into metadata of the filesystem request. As another example, a filesystem generator creates a data structure and associates it with the filesystem” [0026] and “change propagator 109A then (or concurrently) creates the request with an identifier of the secondary logical storage object that has a full sync relationship with the primary logical storage object. The change propagator 109A creates this filesystem request with a different requestor as well. The change propagator 109A indicates the change propagator 109A as the requestor” [0029] are disclosed, also See paras. 14-15, 39, wherein requestor identifier in which “request can indicate the type of operation (e.g., read, write), a target of the request (e.g., a logical storage object identifier), and an identifier of a requestor” [0015] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
determining no association information between the first object and the second object is stored in the second data structure; (See Fig. 5, paras. 166, wherein no association with objects are disclosed, also See Fig. 12, paras. 27-28, 139, wherein data structures are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
and returning at least the first object. (See Table 1, Fig. 3, paras. 20, 47, wherein providing logical storage object in which “the primary node determines a combined response that is to be provided to the requestor of the write request received at block 302…. the combined response is determined based, at least in part, on the status of the write requests issued at blocks 304 and 306. Table 1 illustrates example combined responses according to aspects of the disclosure, where the combined response is based on possible outcomes of the requests issued” [0047] are disclosed; as taught by Mu.)
However, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein responsive to no edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information; and responsive to one or more edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, determining association information between the first object and the second object is stored in the second data structure; wherein identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information includes querying all edge tables in the second data structure that include at least the first identifier to determine if the edge tables contain the second identifier.
On the other hand, Melo teaches wherein responsive to no edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information; (See Figs. 4, 11, paras. 32, 74, 81, wherein identifying target data in which “edge node 300 includes a number of different fields. Edge node 300 includes edge node identifier 302, source node identifier 304, target node identifier 306, edge type 308, timestamp 310, and other data” [0074] are disclosed, also See Fig. 6, paras. 97-101, wherein edge table are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
and responsive to one or more edge tables being identified within the second data structure that include the target association information, determining association information between the first object and the second object is stored in the second data structure; (See Figs. 4, 11, paras. 32, 74, 81, wherein identifying target data in which “edge nodes representing edges connecting the object nodes for the people based on relationships between the people; and influence nodes representing associations between the edges in which the associations are for opinion influences on opinions about items” [0032] are disclosed, also See Fig. 6, paras. 97-101, wherein edge table are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
wherein identifying one or more edge tables in the second data structure that include the target association information includes querying all edge tables in the second data structure that include at least the first identifier to determine if the edge tables contain the second identifier. (See Figs. 2-4, 11, paras. 32, 74, 81, wherein identifying target data in which “edge nodes representing edges connecting the object nodes for the people based on relationships between the people; and influence nodes representing associations between the edges in which the associations are for opinion influences on opinions about items” [0032] are disclosed, also See Fig. 6, paras. 97-101, wherein edge table are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Melo teachings in the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate marketing management system taught by Melo in the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson system for effective reconciliation in sync replication. In addition, both of the references (Mu, Lysne, Nicholson, and Melo) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data updating. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 16, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein the target association information includes a target association identifier indicating an association type, and wherein the target association identifier is a contact association type.
On the other hand, Melo teaches wherein the target association information includes a target association identifier indicating an association type, and wherein the target association identifier is a contact association type. (See Figs. 2-4, 11, paras. 32, 74, 81, wherein identifying target are disclosed, also See Fig. 6, paras. 97-101, 119, wherein edge table, association between edges in a data structure in which “Edge table 506 also includes columns 526. Each column in columns 526 represents fields in records 524. As depicted, columns 526 include edge identifier 528, source 530, target 532, and edge type” [0098] are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
See claim 14 for motivation above.
As per claim 19, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein generating new association information indicative of the association between the first object and the second object includes: inferring that the first object is associated with the second object by an inferred association type based on the target object read request, wherein the inferred association type is a contact association type.
On the other hand, Melo teaches wherein generating new association information indicative of the association between the first object and the second object includes: inferring that the first object is associated with the second object by an inferred association type based on the target object read request, wherein the inferred association type is a contact association type. (See paras. 13-14, 144, wherein identifying group of influencers based on level of influence and number of influencers on potential customer in which “identifying an influencer that has an influence on the potential customer with respect to the item, wherein the influencer is identified using a hypergraph comprising objects representing people in the social network; edges representing edges connecting the objects for the people based on relationships between the people; and influence edges for opinion influences on opinions about items, wherein the influence edges connect the edges to identify opinion influences between the people” [0014] are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
See claim 14 for motivation above.
As per claim 24, the combination of Mu and Nicholson fails to disclose writing the new association information to the second data structure by: determining first and second object keys from the respective first and second objects.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches writing the new association information to the second data structure by: determining first and second object keys from the respective first and second objects. (See Table 2, paras. 208, 237-240, wherein keys, indexing keys are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Lysne teachings in the combination of Mu and Nicholson system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system of modeling object networks taught by Lysne in the combination of Mu and Nicholson system for effective reconciliation in sync replication. In addition, both of the references (Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data updating. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson fails to disclose writing the first and second object keys to an edge table of the second data structure, the edge table being indicative of the association between the first object and the second object.
On the other hand, Melo teaches writing the first and second object keys to an edge table of the second data structure, the edge table being indicative of the association between the first object and the second object. (See Figs. 3-4, paras. 32, 73, 81, wherein nodes representing associations between edges are disclosed, also See Fig. 5, paras. 44, 94-98, wherein edge tables are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
See claim 14 for motivation above.
As per claim 25, the combination of Mu, Nicholson, and Melo fails to disclose wherein the first and second keys are extracted from first and second tables of the respective first and second objects.
On the other hand, Lysne teaches wherein the first and second keys are extracted from first and second tables of the respective first and second objects. (See paras. 179, 275-276, wherein extracting data features are disclosed, also See Table 1, para. 232, wherein object retrieval process are disclosed; as taught by Lysne.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Lysne teachings in the combination of Mu, Nicholson, and Melo system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system of modeling object networks taught by Lysne in the combination of Mu, Nicholson, and Melo system for effective reconciliation in sync replication. In addition, both of the references (Mu, Lysne, Nicholson and Melo ) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data updating. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 29, the combination of Mu, Lysne, and Nicholson fails to disclose wherein the user interface is a user interface provided by an accounting platform.
On the other hand, Melo teaches wherein the user interface is a user interface provided by an accounting platform. (See para. 6, wherein various activities and services, such as banking, purchase products, communications are disclosed; as taught by Melo.)
See claim 14 for motivation above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Slinker et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0228726) discloses determining associative intent in a database containing linked entities.
Wilkins et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0205655) discloses contact management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights