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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 and 15-25 are pending. Claims 1, 15, 24 and 25 are amended. Claims 13, 14 and 26 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 8, 2025 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 15, as amended do not recite an abstract idea. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed in the Office Action below, the claimed outputting of responses providing values of attributes to a computer program are considered mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Furthermore, these steps are recited as being implemented using a generic computer program to which a user can selectively send attribute values. Even, as amended, the claimed outputting of response steps are still considered to be abstract.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide a technological improvement to data storage technology by using inheritance relationships among data entity instances that can be overridden using a generated GUI component, the inheritance relationships being accessed through a stored inheritance path. Applicant reasons that these recited features allow for efficient query execution by eliminating processing that would be required in conventional systems to separately locate multiple data entity instances in memory that replicate an attribute value. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner submits that although Applicant points out that the improvement of query efficiency is an improvement over technology, the improvement to the SQL query execution is merely an effect of using the inheritance relationships within the system. The additional limitations of the inheritance relationships being stored within an inheritance path is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, the recitation of the overriding function now being recited as provided by the generation of a GUI component is implementation of the abstract idea using a generic GUI component. 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2025 and 12/19/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The annotated drawings filed on December 8, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation ‘using the specification....the second attribute of the second instance locating..’ in lines 23-26 of claim 1, lines 22-24 of claim 24 and lines 23-26 of claim 25 should read “using the specification....the second attribute of the second instance to locate..’”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 structured query language (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 inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates an 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 generate an output response providing the values of the attributes to the computer program stored in memory of the data persistence layer, the executing comprising: using the specification of the inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicate the inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance, locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer; when input received through a graphical user interface (GUI) overrides the value inherited from the second attribute through the inheritance path: accessing, from the data persistence layer, an overriding value specified by the input received through the GUI for overriding the value inherited from the second attribute; outputting a first response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the first response comprising the overriding value as the value of the first attribute; and when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the inheritance path is not overridden: retrieving the value of the second attribute from the second instance in the data persistence layer; and outputting a second response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the second response comprising the value of the second attribute retrieved from the second instance as the value of the first attribute; 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].
The limitations of when input received through a graphical user interface (GUI) overrides the value inherited from the second attribute through the inheritance path: outputting a first response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the first response comprising the overriding value as the value of the first attribute; and when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the inheritance path is not overridden: outputting a second response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the second response comprising the value of the second attribute retrieved from the second instance as the value of the first attribute, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one computer hardware processor”, “a data persistence layer” and “through a GUI” (in claim 1) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the by at least one computer hardware processor” and GUI (in claim 1), performing the outputting steps in the context of these claims encompasses a user mentally outputting values of attributes stored in a computer. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional steps of receiving, from a computer program, a programmatic request comprising a structured query language (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 inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates an 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 generate an output response providing the values of the attributes to the computer program stored in memory of the data persistence layer, the executing comprising: using the specification of the inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicate the inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance, locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer; when input received through a graphical user interface (GUI) overrides the value inherited from the second attribute through the inheritance path: accessing, from the data persistence layer, an overriding value specified by the input received through the GUI 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 inheritance path is not overridden: retrieving the value of the second attribute from the second instance in the data persistence layer, 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].
The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query and executing the SQL query to generate an output response, as well as the using of the specification, locating, accessing, and retrieving 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), the locating of stored information relevant to the query and retrieving the stored values from the specification as the query is executed, is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. 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.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer hardware and software components (i.e. the at least one computer hardware processor and the data persistence layer). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the at least one computer hardware processor is a generic computer processor which performs the receiving, executing, generating an output response, as well as the using, locating, accessing, retrieving and storing steps. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). As such, the receiving, executing, generating an output response, as well as the using, locating, accessing, retrieving and storing steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 25 recites:
receiving, from a computer program, a programmatic request comprising a structured query language (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 inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates an 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 generate an output response providing the values of the attributes to the computer program stored in memory of the data persistence layer, the executing comprising: using the specification of the inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicate the inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance, locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer; when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the inheritance path is not overridden: retrieving the value of the second attribute from the second instance from the data persistence layer; and outputting a response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the response comprising the value of the second attribute retrieved from the second instance as the value of the first attribute; 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.
The limitation of when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the inheritance path is not overridden: outputting a response to the programmatic request by providing the values of the attributes to the computer program, the values of the attributes in the response comprising the value of the second attribute retrieved from the second instance as the value of the first attribute, as drafted, is a process 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 “by at least one computer hardware processor” and “a data persistence layer”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the by at least one computer hardware processor”, performing the outputting step in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally outputting values of attributes stored in a computer. 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 claims recite the additional steps of receiving, from a computer program, a programmatic request comprising a structured query language (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 inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, indicates an 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 generate an output response providing the values of the attributes to the computer program stored in memory of the data persistence layer, the executing comprising: using the specification of the inheritance relationships, stored in the data persistence layer, that indicate the inheritance path through which the first attribute of the first instance inherits its value from the second attribute of the second instance, locating the second instance in the memory of the data persistence layer; when the first attribute’s inheritance of the value of the second attribute through the inheritance path is not overridden: retrieving the value of the second attribute from the second instance from the data persistence layer; 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.
The receiving of a programmatic request step comprising a SQL query and executing the SQL query to generate an output response, as well as the using of the specification, locating and retrieving 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), the locating of stored information relevant to the query and retrieving the stored values from the specification as the query is executed, is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. 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.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer hardware and software components (i.e. the at least one computer hardware processor and the data persistence layer). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the at least one computer hardware processor is a generic computer processor which performs the receiving, executing to generate an output response, as well as the locating, retrieving and storing steps. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). As such, the receiving, generating, locating, retrieving and storing steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 12 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 and 12 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 2-6 and 12 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 data persistence layer stores at least 10,000 data entity instances (claim 3); 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); the data persistence layer stores the specification of 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), which are considered insignificant extra solution activity. They therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-6 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 19 depend from claims 6 and 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claims 6 and 1, therefore claims 7 and 19 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 7 and 19 furthermore recite: 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: accessing 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). The determining step of claim 7 and the preventing the overriding step of claim 19 are mental steps that can also be performed in the human mind. The accessing and retrieving steps of claim 7 are considered insignificant extra solution activity similar to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). They therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claim 8 furthermore recites that the outputting comprises: displaying, in the GUI: the first attribute value; and information indicating whether the first attribute value is inherited or overridden, which is considered insignificant extra solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). It therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claim 9 furthermore recites that 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 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. The grouping step is a mental step that can also be performed in the human mind. The generating of the query step is considered insignificant extra solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). It therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 9 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 9, therefore claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claim 10 furthermore recites 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, which is a mental step that can also be performed in the human mind. It therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 10, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claim 11 furthermore recites that the grouping criterion is to group attributes that inherit values from a common instance into the single group, and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. It therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 11 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 depend from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore 15, 16, 18 and 20-23 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 15, 16, 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 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 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), which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). The steps are recited as being performed through a generic GUI component and as such do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 15-18 and 20-23 are therefore not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Conclusion
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 Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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/
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164