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 communication is in response to Amendment filed on July 6, 2026.
Claims 1-12 and 15-25 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 9, 12, 15, 20, 24 and 25 are amended. Claims 13, 14 and 26 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the objections to claims 1, 24 and 25, Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. As such, the objections to the aforenoted claims are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on July 6, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 24 and 25, as amended do not recite an abstract idea. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed in the Office Action below, the claimed ‘locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer using the specification of the cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships stored in the data persistence layer, that indicates the cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance‘ is a mental process. One can visually locate an instance of data based on inheritance relationships as a criteria when looking at a data source. The recitation of the ‘memory of the data persistence layer’ storing the second instance is merely an additional element recited as a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
As such, Examiner maintains that the claims do recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide a technological improvement to database storage technology by efficiently executing SQL queries through the locating of inheritance relationships accessed through a stored inheritance path to directly access a source instance in memory and through the retrieving of an overriding value from the data persistence layer for overriding the value inherited from the second attribute. However, in both of these instances, the improvement to the technology seems to be a result of accessing stored data in memory that is stored in a data persistence layer and comprises a stored path to the data stored. As addressed previously, the storing and retrieval of data through the stored path within a data persistence layer is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, Examiner submits that the improvement is rendered through the use of a computer technological environment. As such, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of the aforenoted claims, as amended, is maintained for at least the reasons stated above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/6/2026 is being considered 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.
Claims 1-12 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 24 recite:
receiving, from a computer program, a programmatic request comprising a SQL query for values of attributes in one or more of the plurality of instances, the attributes including a first attribute of a first instance of a first data entity, wherein:
the first data entity comprises a plurality of attributes including the first attribute, and
the specification of cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates a cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from a second attribute of a second instance of a second data entity different from the first data entity,
in response to receiving the programmatic request comprising the SQL query for the values of the attributes in the one or more instances, executing the SQL query to retrieve the values of the attributes requested by the computer program from memory of the data persistence layer, the executing of the SQL query comprising:
locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer using the specification of the cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicates the cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance;
when the value inherited from the second attribute through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path is overridden:
retrieving, from the data persistence layer, an overriding value for the first attribute specified by input received for overriding the value inherited from the second attribute; and
when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path is not overridden:
retrieving, through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path, the value of the second attribute from the second instance in the data persistence layer; and
transmitting, to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query,
wherein:
the attribute values in the plurality of instances of the data entities describe data stored in databases distributed across a network of computing systems; and
the data persistence layer of the data processing system is configured to store a data entity instance for each of multiple datasets stored by one or more of the databases distributed across the network of computing systems [italicized limitations included in claim 1].
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1 and 24 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “locating the second instance using the specification of the cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicates the cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance” is a mental step. One can visually locate an instance of data based on inheritance relationships as a criteria when looking at a data source. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 1 and 24 recite the limitations “receiving a programmatic request comprising a SQL query for values of attributes in one or more of the plurality of instances, the attributes including a first attribute of a first instance of a first data entity, wherein: the first data entity comprises a plurality of attributes including the first attribute, and the specification of cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships indicates a cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from a second attribute of a second instance of a second data entity different from the first data entity” and “in response to receiving the programmatic request comprising the SQL query for the values of the attributes in the one or more instances, executing the SQL query to retrieve the values of the attributes requested”.
The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query and executing the SQL query to retrieve values of stored attributes as a response steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving a query for values of attributes of one or more of the plurality of instances), and retrieving the stored values from the specification as the query is executed, are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “when the value inherited from the second attribute through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path is overridden: retrieving an overriding value for the first attribute specified by input received for overriding the value inherited from the second attribute” and “when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path is not overridden: retrieving, through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path, the value of the second attribute from the second instance” are also additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “transmitting, to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query” is an additional element and is mere output recited at a high level of generality in response to an input query and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as ‘selecting information for output as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Additionally with regard to claim 1, the limitations of the attribute values in the plurality of instances of the data entities describe data stored in databases distributed across a network of computing systems; and the data processing system is configured to store a data entity instance for each of multiple datasets stored by one or more of the databases distributed across the network of computing systems are also considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 24 recite the following additional elements “data processing system”, “at least one hardware processor”, “computer readable medium”, “computer program”, “memory”, “data persistence layer”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the " The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query”, “executing the SQL query to retrieve values of stored attributes as a response” and “transmitting, to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are 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.
Furthermore, the “retrieving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are 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, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 25 recites:
receiving, from a computer program, a programmatic request comprising a SQL query for values of attributes of one or more of the plurality of instances, the attributes including a first attribute of a first instance of a first data entity, wherein:
the first data entity comprises a plurality of attributes including the first attribute; and
the specification of cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates a cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from a second attribute of a second instance of a second data entity different from the first data entity;
in response to receiving the programmatic request comprising the SQL query for the values of the attributes in the one or more instances, executing the SQL query to retrieve the values of the attributes requested by the computer program from memory of the data persistence layer, the executing comprising:
locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer using the specification of the cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicate the cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance;
retrieving, through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path, the value of the second attribute from the second instance from the data persistence layer; and
transmitting to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query;
wherein the attribute values in the plurality of instances of the data entities describe data stored in databases distributed across a network of computing systems; and the data processing system is configured to store a data entity instance for each of multiple datasets stored by one or more of the databases distributed across the network of computing systems.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 25 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “locating the second instance using the specification of the cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicates the cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance” is a mental step. One can visually locate an instance of data based on inheritance relationships as a criteria when looking at a data source. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 25 recites the limitations “receiving a programmatic request comprising a SQL query for values of attributes of one or more of the plurality of instances, the attributes including a first attribute of a first instance of a first data entity, wherein: the first data entity comprises a plurality of attributes including the first attribute; and the specification of cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships indicates a cross-entity attribute inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from a second attribute of a second instance of a second data entity different from the first data entity” and “in response to receiving the programmatic request comprising the SQL query for the values of the attributes in the one or more instances, executing the SQL query to retrieve the values of the attributes requested”.
The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query and executing the SQL query to retrieve values of stored attributes as a response steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving a query for values of attributes of one or more of the plurality of instances), and retrieving the stored values from the specification as the query is executed, are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “retrieving, through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path, the value of the second attribute from the second instance” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “transmitting to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query” is an additional element and is mere output recited at a high level of generality in response to an input query and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as ‘selecting information for output as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Additionally with regard to claim 25, the limitations of the attribute values in the plurality of instances of the data entities describe data stored in databases distributed across a network of computing systems; and the data processing system is configured to store a data entity instance for each of multiple datasets stored by one or more of the databases distributed across the network of computing systems are also considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, Claim 25 recites the following additional elements “data processing system”, “at least one computer hardware processor”, “computer program”, “memory”, “data persistence layer”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the " The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query”, “executing the SQL query to retrieve values of stored attributes as a response” and “transmitting, to the computer program, a response to the programmatic request based on results of executing the SQL query” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are 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.
Furthermore, the “retrieving” limitation 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, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 19 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2 and 4-7 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 2, 4-7 and 19 furthermore recite that:
the first data entity includes information indicating: (i) that the first attribute inherits its value from the second attribute; and (ii) whether the first attribute is configurable to override its inherited value (claim 2);
the SQL query is for values of attributes of a plurality of instances including the first instance (claim 4);
the first instance comprises multiple attribute values, wherein each of at least some of the multiple attribute values is inherited from a respective instance of a different data entity (claim 5);
the second attribute of the second instance is configured to inherit its value from a third attribute of a third instance of a third data entity different from the second data entity and the first data entity (claim 6);
determining whether the second attribute of the second instance is configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute; and when it is determined that the second attribute of the second instance is configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute: retrieving another overriding value for overriding the value inherited from the third attribute as the value inherited from the second attribute; and when it is determined that the second attribute of the second instance is not configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute: retrieving the value of the third attribute from the third instance (claim 7); and
wherein the first instance of the first data entity includes a third attribute that inherits its value from an instance of another data entity and further comprising: preventing overriding of the value inherited from the instance of the other data entity (claim 19).
Step 1: Claims 2, 4-7 and 19 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2, 4-7 and 19 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 which recites mental steps.
The limitation “determining whether the second attribute of the second instance is configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute” in claim 7 is a mental step. One can mentally determine whether a data attribute should override a value inherited from another attribute. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the first instance of the first data entity includes a third attribute that inherits its value from an instance of another data entity and further comprising: preventing overriding of the value inherited from the instance of the other data entity” in claim 19 is a mental step. One can mentally determine not to override a value of a data item. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 2 and 4-6 recite the limitations “the first data entity includes information indicating: (i) that the first attribute inherits its value from the second attribute; and (ii) whether the first attribute is configurable to override its inherited value (claim 2)”, “the SQL query is for values of attributes of a plurality of instances including the first instance (claim 4)”, “the first instance comprises multiple attribute values, wherein each of at least some of the multiple attribute values is inherited from a respective instance of a different data entity (claim 5)” and “the second attribute of the second instance is configured to inherit its value from a third attribute of a third instance of a third data entity different from the second data entity and the first data entity (claim 6)” further define the first data entity, SQL query and second attribute of the second instance within the “receiving” step in claim 1, which was considered data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the aforenoted claims do not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “when it is determined that the second attribute of the second instance is configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute: retrieving another overriding value for overriding the value inherited from the third attribute as the value inherited from the second attribute” and “when it is determined that the second attribute of the second instance is not configured to override the value inherited from the third attribute: retrieving the value of the third attribute from the third instance” in claim 7 are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "receiving” limitation 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.
Furthermore, the “retrieving” limitations 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, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2, 4-7 and 19 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 12 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 3 and 12 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 3 and 12 furthermore recite that:
the data persistence layer stores at least 10,000 data entity instances (claim 3);
the data persistence layer stores the specification of cross-entity attribute inheritance relationships among the attribute values in the plurality of instances as information indicating inheritance paths each comprising a sequence of one or more steps through which an attribute is configured to inherit its value (claim 12).
Step 1: Claims 3 and 12 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 3 and 12 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 which recites mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claims 3 and 12 further refine the “data persistence layer” which is an additional element recited at a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 8-11 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 8-11 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 8-11 furthermore recite:
“displaying, in the GUI: the first attribute value; and information indicating whether the first attribute value is inherited or overridden” (claim 8);
“the first instance includes respective values for a first plurality of attributes including the first attribute, the first plurality of attributes being configured to inherit their values from a respective second plurality of attributes of the second instance, wherein the query for the values of the attributes of the one or more instances comprises a query for the values of the first plurality of attributes, and wherein the method further comprises: grouping the first plurality of attributes into a single group; and generating a single executable query for the single group in accordance with the SQL query; and executing the SQL query by executing the single executable query, wherein the single executable query, when executed by the data processing system, causes the data processing system to generate a response to the programmatic request” (claim 9);
“grouping the first plurality of attributes into the single group comprises grouping the first plurality of attributes into the single group using a grouping criterion” (claim 10); and
“the grouping criterion is to group attributes that inherit values from a common instance into the single group” (claim 11).
Step 1: Claims 8-11 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 8-11 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 which recites mental steps.
Claims 9-11 recite “grouping the first plurality of attributes into a single group”, “grouping the first plurality of attributes into the single group comprises grouping the first plurality of attributes into the single group using a grouping criterion” and “the grouping criterion is to group attributes that inherit values from a common instance into the single group” which are mental steps. One can mentally group attributes into a group using specific parameters. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 9 recites “generating a single executable query for the single group in accordance with the SQL query” which is a mental step. A user can mentally generate a SQL query using pen and paper. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 8 recites ““displaying, in the GUI: the first attribute value; and information indicating whether the first attribute value is inherited or overridden” which is an additional element and is mere output recited at a high level of generality in response to an input query and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as ‘selecting information for display as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “executing the SQL query by executing the single executable query, wherein the single executable query, when executed by the data processing system, causes the data processing system to generate a response to the programmatic request”. These limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of executing a query for values of attributes) to generate a response, are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "executing the SQL query by executing the single executable query, wherein the single executable query, when executed by the data processing system, causes the data processing system to generate a response to the programmatic request” and “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are 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.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 15-18 and 20-23 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 furthermore recite:
generating in the GUI, a graphical element that, when selected, triggers generation of a graphical component in GUI, the graphical component enabling the override of the value inherited by the first attribute through the cross-entity attribute inheritance path (claim 15);
when the first attribute is configurable to override its inherited value: generating the graphical element (claim 16);
generating the second portion of the GUI comprises: enabling a user to specify, through the second portion of the GUI, the overriding value for overriding the value inherited from the second attribute (claim 17);
wherein the first instance of the first data entity includes a third attribute that inherits its value from an instance of another data entity and further comprising: generating a portion of the GUI indicating that the third attribute is not configurable to override its inherited value (claim 18);
generating a first GUI allowing a user to configure the first data entity such that the first attribute inherits its value from the second attribute (claim 20);
wherein the first instance of the first data entity stores values of multiple attributes including the first attribute and further comprising generating a first GUI displaying the values of the multiple attributes stored in the first instance of the first data entity and information indicating a source of the first attribute value (claim 21);
the first GUI is configured to display the information indicating the source of the first attribute value in response to a mouse-over event (claim 22); and
generating the first GUI further comprises displaying, in the first GUI for each of at least some of the multiple attributes stored in the first instance of the first data entity, an indication of whether a value of the attribute is configurable to override its inherited value (claim 23).
Step 1: Claims 15-18 and 20-23 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 15-18 and 20-23 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 which recites mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 recite the additional element of “a GUI”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental processes of overriding values inherited, preventing overriding, allowing a user to configure values and displaying values and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
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 8 and 18 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 8 and 18 recites the limitations "the outputting" and “the GUI”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Due the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Novel and/or nonobvious Matter
Claims 1-12 and 15-25 were been found to be novel and/or nonobvious for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action dated July 8, 2024 and would be allowable if the 35 USC 101 and 112 issues are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mercer (US 8356290) directed to: using a class inheritance hierarchy containing ancestor and descendant classes [Fig 5, 7 and related portions of specification];
Bak (US 20190340304) directed to: hierarchical object linkage data visualization including overriding values by descendants and relative position of parent node [Abstract; para 21; Fig 1A-1G, para 29, 34].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 10am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S//AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights