DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 04/13/2026 in response to the final office action mailed on 01/16/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
3. In response to the last Office Action, no claims have been amended, added or canceled. As a result, claims 17-35 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and details are as follow:
Applicant’s argument stated as “The recited feature executing the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation is an improvement in computer technology because the computer is not actually performing a JOIN operation, i.e., the first join operation, but instead it performs an operation which is less computationally expensive than a JOIN operation”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitation of enhancing database query execution, 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 “a processing circuitry”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processing circuitry” language, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying a first join operation within a database query between a first table and a second table, the first join operation is a M-M join operation or a 1-M join operation. Similarly, the limitation of converting the first join operation to an enhanced operation [e.g., the enhanced operation is a conventional semi-join operation which described in the specification], as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind by for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processing circuitry” language, “converting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user rewrites or enhances the query when the first join operation is detected/identified by the user. Further, the limitation of executing the database query using the rewritten/enhanced operation [e.g., the rewritten/enhanced operation is a semi-join operation that does not execute a join operation], as drafted, is a process that, under its board reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind by for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processing circuitry” language, “executing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user applies and decides the database query using the semi-join operation instead of the first join operation.
In addition, the limitation “whereby as a result of executing by the processing circuitry the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation a correct result as if the first join was performed is achieved in less time than would be required of the processing circuitry to perform the first join itself” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a computer. The same execution benefits would occur in manual hand processing the results from the ‘enhanced query’. The same execution benefits would occur in hand processing the results from the ‘enhanced query’. Further, the specification describes the database at page 12, as a generic DBMS server and also on p.18 as essentially executing standard generic SQL. All of that support that the database and DBMS itself are generic computer components and conventional, and that they execute any queries provided in an entirely generic, conventional fashion. Accordingly, merely executing the ‘enhanced query’ is not any integration into a practical application or significantly more. Moreover, when analyzing the claimed method as a whole and giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied [e.g., if the first join was performed is achieved in more time than would be required of the processing circuitry to perform the first join itself], the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Therefore, claim 17, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind by for the recitation of generic computer components, and it falls within the “Mental” processors” grouping of abstract ideas. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processing circuitry to perform identifying, converting and executing. The processing circuitry in all the steps is recited at a high-level generality (i.e., as a generic processor converting a query with a first join operation to a semi join database operation and executing the query using the semi join database operation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. According this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any 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 additional element of using a processor to perform all the steps [e.g. identifying, converting and executing] amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claims 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 17-35 are directed to the abstract idea of enhancing database execution, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer components which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer software functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17, recites, in part, a method comprising instructions to enhance database query execution comprising the following steps:
Identifying a first join operation within a database query between a first table and a second table, wherein the first join operation is a many-to-many join operation or a one-to many join operation, wherein fields of the second table are used for filtering rows from the first table or for joining with another table [e.g. “identifying” a query can constitute a mental process as observing and evaluating fields in database tables using pen and paper];
converting the first join operation to an enhanced operation, wherein the enhanced operation includes a semijoin operation [e.g. “converting” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after evaluation and observation between fields in database tables using pen and paper];
executing the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation, whereby as a result of executing by the processing circuitry the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation as a correct result as if the first join was performed is achieved in less time than would be required to perform the first join itself [ e.g., “executing” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after replacing the query to other SQL relational operation using pen and paper].
Claim 17 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g. mental processes] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. The additional elements including executing SQL operations such as a join operation and a semi-join operation are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “The join operation or the semi join [e.g. the current enhanced operation] is a conventional SQL relational operation which is used for data retrieval (US 2007/0061288 A1, para. [0007]-para. [0008]). Moreover, the specification describes the database at page 12, as a generic DBMS server and also on p.18 as essentially executing standard generic SQL. All of that support that the database and DBMS itself are generic computer components and conventional, and that they execute any queries provided in an entirely generic, conventional fashion. Accordingly, merely executing the ‘enhanced query’ is not any integration into a practical application or significantly more. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 18-20 further describe the enhance operation is used for filtering rows are similar to claim 17 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claim describes the enhanced operation is a semijoin operation which is conventional SQL relational operations (US 2007/0061288 A1, para. [0007]-para. [0008]). Claims 18-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 18-20 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 21 further describe that the conversion is achieved during execution of the database query is similar to claim 17 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The additional feature “converting an operation during execution of a query” is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer to perform an abstract idea. The converting steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 25 further defines the database is a columnar database or a relational database is similar to claim 17 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. That is, other than reciting a computer database, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element “relational database” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 25 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 26 recites, in part, a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuity to execute a process, the process comprising:
Identifying a first join operation within a database query between a first table and a second table, wherein the first join operation is a many-to-many join operation or a one-to many join operation, wherein fields of the second table are used for filtering rows from the first table or for joining with another table [e.g. “identifying” can constitute a mental process an evaluation between fields in database tables using pen and paper];
converting the first join operation to an enhanced operation, wherein the enhanced operation includes a semijoin operation [e.g. “converting” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after evaluation and observation between fields in database tables using pen and paper];
executing the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation, whereby as a result of executing by the processing circuitry the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation as a correct result as if the first join was performed is achieved in less time than would be required to perform the first join itself [ e.g., “executing” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after replacing the query to other SQL relational operation using pen and paper].
Claim 26 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental processes] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. That is, other than reciting a computer circuitry and a database, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional elements including SQL operations such as a join operation and a semi-join operation are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “The join operation or the semi join operation is conventional SQL relational operation, which is used for data retrieval (US 2007/0061288 A1, para. [0007]-para. [0008]). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 26 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 27 recites, in part, a system for enhancing database query execution comprising: a processing circuity and a memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to:
Identifying a first join operation within a database query between a first table and a second table, wherein the first join operation is a many-to-many join operation or a one-to many join operation, wherein fields of the second table are used for filtering rows from the first table or for joining with another table [e.g. “identifying” can constitute a mental process an evaluation between fields in database tables using pen and paper];
converting the first join operation to an enhanced operation, wherein the enhanced operation includes a semi-join operation [e.g. “converting” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after evaluation and observation between fields in database tables using pen and paper];
executing the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation, whereby as a result of executing by the processing circuitry the database query using the enhanced operation and without executing a join as part of the enhanced operation as a correct result as if the first join was performed is achieved in less time than would be required to perform the first join itself [ e.g., “executing” can constitute a mental process as a judgement after replacing the query to other SQL relational operation using pen and paper].
Claim 27 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g. mental processes] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. The additional elements including executing SQL operations such as a join operation and a semi-join operation are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “The join operation or the semi join [e.g. the current enhanced operation] is a conventional SQL relational operation which is used for data retrieval (US 2007/0061288 A1, para. [0007]-para. [0008]). Moreover, the specification describes the database at page 12, as a generic DBMS server and also on p.18 as essentially executing standard generic SQL. All of that support that the database and DBMS itself are generic computer components and conventional, and that they execute any queries provided in an entirely generic, conventional fashion. Accordingly, merely executing the ‘enhanced query’ is not any integration into a practical application or significantly more. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 27 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 28-30 further describe the enhance operation is used for filtering rows are similar to claim 27 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claim describes the enhanced operation is a semijoin operation which is a conventional SQL relational operation (US 2007/0061288 A1, para. [0007]-para. [0008]). Claims 28-30 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 28-30 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 31 further describe that the conversion is achieved during execution of the database query is similar to claim 27 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The additional feature “converting an operation during execution of a query” is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer to perform an abstract idea. The converting steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 31 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 35 further defines the database is a columnar database or a relational database is similar to claim 27 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. That is, other than reciting a computer database, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element “relational database” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 35 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 35 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
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 YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712701698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights