DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted September 17, 2025 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments towards a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant presents various arguments that amounts to a discussion of whether the steps of the claims may be performed in the mind.
Specifically, the Applicant is addressing whether defining a view, by using procedural code, can be performed in the mind.
Defining a view is analogous to defining a table based on particular parameters is something that may be performed in the mind or with help of pen and paper. Meaning, a user could use a pen and paper to construct a table based on particular parameters. The fact that it takes procedural code to perform the abstract concept is analogous to “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05A).
As to arguments towards limitation (b) (page 10 of Remarks), the human mind, with aid of pen and paper, can certainly identify which parameters from a table to extract and either mental identify or write down a new table with a couple parameters. Furthermore, identify a couple parameters to use for a new table is certainly something that may be performed in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
Moreover, identifying reserved words is something that a person can do in their minds.
As to the claims reciting an improvement to a computer functionality, the purported improvements just restate the abstract ideas discussed above.
As such, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended to recite “reserved software language keywords.”
However, the instant specification does not recite such a phrase. Rather, the specification describes a concept of “reserved words” and a concept of allowing particular keywords to be used in tables and/or column names (see at least paragraphs [0011, 0014, 0016].)
The described keywords are not analogous to the amended feature of reserved software language keywords. When a concept of software language keywords is used, that implies that the keywords are from a particular software language like SQL. But the instant specification does not support such functionality.
As such, the instant specification does not seem to describe the concept of “reserved software language keywords.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended to recite “reserved software language keywords.”
However, the instant specification does not recite such a phrase. Rather, the specification describes a concept of “reserved words” and a concept of allowing particular keywords to be used in tables and/or column names (see at least paragraphs [0011, 0014, 0016].) When a concept of software language keywords is used, that implies that the keywords are from a particular software language like SQL. But the instant specification does not support such functionality.
Based on how the specification presents the concept of reserved words, it is unclear what the Applicant means by the amended feature of “reserved software language keywords.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following features:
determining that a table name or one or more column names of a table used in the DBMS violate one or more predefined rules for the software application, wherein the table is a first database object of the DBMS, the DBMS is a first type of DBMS with a first set of naming restrictions and the software application is configured for a second type of DBMS with a second set of naming restrictions, the one or more predefined rules define one or more reserved software language keywords based on the second set of naming restrictions, and the table name or the one or more column names include at least one of the one or more reserved software language keywords violating the one or more predefined rules – Looking at table names from different places and identifying which words should not be used in the table names is a mental process that may be performed in a person’s mind.
in response to the determining, defining a view in the DBMS for the table based on procedural code stored in the DBMS, wherein the procedural code defines the view such that a view name of the view or the one or more column names of the view satisfy the one or more predefined rules for the software application - Defining a new table based on changing a name of a table based on certain restrictions is a mental process that may be performed in a person’s mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
based on modification of DBMS-specific referential integrity information of the DBMS and a request from the software application to specifically extract or load data from the table, generating the defined view based on the stored procedural code and causing the request to be directed to and handled by the generated view instead of the table - Extracting data from the newly defined table is a mental process that may be performed in a person’s mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite hardware elements such as a memory, a processor, etc. However, the hardware elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information.
As to dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, these claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the Claims recite more details of mentally processing table data, which is additional recitations of the abstract idea
identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0374400) in view of Rawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0159714) further in view of Jin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0214111) further in view of Apps et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125554) and further in view of Senturk (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0075443).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Kanematsu discloses a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for allowing a software application subject to restrictions on table names or column names work with a database management system (DBMS), comprising:
determining that a table name or one or more column names of a table used in the DBMS violate one or more predefined rules for the software application [0100]. [See at least identifying “spelling inconsistency rule” (i.e. violation of the spelling rule).]
in response to the determining, defining a view in the DBMS for the table based on procedural code stored in the DBMS, wherein the procedural code defines the view such that a view name of the view or the one or more column names of the view satisfy the one or more predefined rules for the software application [0100]. [See at least converting table name and column name in response to the violation.]
Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the DBMS is a first type of DBMS with a first set of naming restrictions and the software application is configured for a second type of DBMS with a second set of naming restrictions, the one or more predefined rules define one or more reserved software language keywords based on the second set of naming restrictions, and the table name or the one or more column names include at least one of the one or more reserved software language keywords violating the one or more predefined rules.
However, Apps [0089] discloses having different naming conventions (i.e. naming rules/restrictions) for different databases and Senturk [0047] discloses identifying “reserved words that cannot be used as column names in a table” and then modifying the identified reserved words.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Apps and Senturk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to access data between different systems with different naming conventions and correct any access issues by correcting a particular naming convention that may be in conflict with the accessing.
Kanematsu alone also does not explicitly disclose causing, based on modification of referential integrity information of the DBMS, a request from the software application to specifically extract or load data from the table, generating the defined view based on the stored procedural code and causing the request to be directed to and handled by the generated view instead of the table.
However, Rawal [0081] discloses extracting data from a table into a view based on a request from an application and Jin [0054] discloses where extracted data from a table is handled by a view rather than files. Furthermore, the instant specification at [0021] describes referential integrity as something “to make it interchangeable to use either the original table or the generated view for the table,” which is consistent with Jin’s operation.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Rawal and Jin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide specific data to a user such as a report based on stored data.
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Kanematsu further discloses wherein the defining the view comprises: defining the view for the table such that columns in the view match the one or more columns in the table in terms of number, type, data length, and order [0100-0101]. [There is not suggestion that anything except table and column names change.]
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0374400) in view of Rawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0159714) further in view of Jin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0214111) further in view of Apps et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125554) further in view of Senturk (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0075443) and further in view of Pushpavanam (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0177026).
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the table name or the one or more column names of the table used in the DBMS violate the one or more predefined rules comprises: determining that the table name or the one or more column names of the table used in the DBMS violate the one or more predefined rules according to a schedule.
However, Kanematsu [0100-0101], as described above, discloses identifying violations to data stored in database tables such as table and column names. Pushpavanam [0038] discloses checking “for violations of the data quality rule 42 according to a predefined schedule.” The violations are based at least on data stored in database tables.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Pushpavanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify errors in database structures.
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the table name or the one or more column names of the table used in the DBMS violate the one or more predefined rules comprises: determining that the table name or the one or more column names of the table used in the DBMS violate the one or more predefined rules in response to the DBMS executing a database trigger.
However, Kanematsu [0100-0101], as described above, discloses identifying violations to data stored in database tables such as table and column names and Pushpavanam [0038] discloses checking “for violations… when a specific action is performed at the database 20.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Pushpavanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify errors in database structures.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0374400) in view of Rawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0159714) further in view of Jin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0214111) further in view of Apps et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125554) further in view of Senturk (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0075443) and further in view of Hollifield et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0229456).
Claims 5 and 12: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 8 above, but Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose identifying the table name or the one or more column names of the table used in the DBMS by analyzing one or more metadata tables in the DBMS.
However, Hollifield [0041] discloses extracting metadata from a table and storing it in a metadata table.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Hollifield. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep track of metadata, such as at least table location, for tables.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0374400) in view of Rawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0159714) further in view of Jin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0214111) further in view of Apps et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125554) further in view of Senturk (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0075443) and further in view of Kuhn et al (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0004745).
Claims 6, 13 and 19: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the creating the view comprises: replacing a character in a column name of the table that violates a predefined rule of the one or more predefined rules with another character in a corresponding column name of the view, wherein the other character does not violate the one or more predefined rules.
However, Kanematsu [0100-0101], as described above, discloses creating another view by converting the table name and column name in response to a violation and Kuhn [0140] describes where “incompatible characters are replaced with an underscore.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Kuhn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that column names are compatible with a particular database structure.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0374400) in view of Rawal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0159714) further in view of Jin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0214111) further in view of Apps et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125554) further in view of Senturk (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0075443) and further in view of Schauder (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0027358).
Claims 7, 14 and 20: Kanematsu as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Kanematsu alone does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the creating the view comprises: determining a presence of a name collision between a column name of the view and another column of the view; and modifying the column name of the view by replacing characters of the column name with underscores starting from a beginning or end of the column name of the view until there is no name collision between the column name of the view and the other column of the view.
However, Schauder [0069] discloses identifying name collisions between columns and modifying characters in a name of a column “to avoid the collision.” As to what specific ways a name collision is resolved, such as using underscores, is considered designer choice of which particular characters should be used to resolve the name collision. Furthermore, selecting which type of character to use as a replacement character does not provide any further functionality to the replacing operation.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanematsu with Schauder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid collisions between column names so that there is no confusion which column is being queried.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schauder to use underscores to modify the names of columns in order to satisfy a particular designer demand.
Conclusion
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163