DETAILED ACTION
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 Office Action is in response to amendments filed on March 2, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claim 19 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The limitation “decomposing the desired computer task into a ranking task and a conversion task for more efficient use of available computing resources as compared to not decomposing the desired computer task into the ranking task and the conversion task”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a desired computer task and mentally decompose, with or without
the use of pen and paper, the desired computer task into a ranking task and a conversion task for more efficient use of available computing resources as compared to not decomposing the desired computer task into the ranking task and the conversion task. The limitation “performing the ranking task include by generating a ranked list of computer language outputs”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate computer language outputs and mentally perform, with or without the use of pen and paper, a ranking task of generating a ranked list of the computer language outputs.
The limitation “wherein a performance of the machine learning trained ranker is evaluated including by determining a minimum amount of edits to transform (i) a computer language statement generated by the machine learning trained ranker into (ii) a ground truth computer language statement”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a machine learning trained ranker and mentally evaluate, with or without the use of pen and paper, the performance of the machine learning trained ranker by determining a minimum amount of edits to transform (i) a computer language statement generated by the machine learning trained ranker into (ii) a ground truth computer language statement. The limitation “performing the conversion task to convert the natural language input to an output in a computer language based at least on the ranked list of computer language outputs including, based on a specified grammar for the computer language, limiting eligible options for a token to include in the output in the computer language”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a natural language input and mentally perform, with or without the use of pen and paper, conversion of the natural language input to an output in a computer language based at least on the ranked list of computer language outputs including by, based on a specified grammar for the computer language, limiting eligible options for a token to include in the output in the computer language.
The limitation “determining, for each of the eligible options, a prediction score based at least in part on a generator probability score with a ranker probability score”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate eligible options and mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a prediction score based at least in part on a generator probability score with a ranker probability score. The limitation “selecting one of the eligible options as the output based at least in part on the prediction score”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate prediction scores and mentally select, with or without the use of pen and paper, one of the eligible options as the output based at least in part on the prediction scores.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“machine learning trained converter”, “ a processor”, “a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions”, “A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for…”, “a machine learning trained ranker”, “by using a machine learning trained converter”, “using a machine learning trained ranker”, “generator probability score determined by a generator” and “a ranker probability score determined by the machine learning trained ranker” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements – “receiving a natural language input specifying a desired computer task” and “providing the output in the computer language for computer execution” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements – “wherein the specified grammar comprises a production rule for a source table identifier token to be processed prior to a column selection token to constrain the eligible options for the column selection token to data fields associated with the source table identifier token” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 19 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and/or field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 19 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “forming a candidate output in the computer language by: starting with a first token; and iteratively concatenating a token from the eligible options” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate eligible options of tokens, just as in the independent claims above, mentally form, with or without the use of pen and paper, a candidate output in the computer language by starting with a first token and iteratively concatenating a token from the eligible options. Further, claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “performing beam search to generate a set of computer language outputs including the candidate output” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas. Also, the limitation of “performing beam search to generate a set of computer language outputs including the candidate output” could be considered merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “transform the natural language input to the output in a computer language includes selecting at least one computer language output from the ranked list of computer language outputs” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate computer language outputs, just as in the independent claims above, mentally select, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one computer language output from the ranked list of computer language outputs. Further, claim 4 recites additional element of “using a machine learning trained ranker” and “using the machine learning trained converter” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 5, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein: the at least one computer language output is selected based at least on a combination of the ranker probability score and the generator probability score” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate computer language outputs, just as in the independent claims above, mentally select, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one computer language output based at least on a combination of a ranker probability score and a generator probability score. Further, claim 5 recites additional elements of “the generator probability score includes a score associated with generating the set of computer language outputs” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 6, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein performance of the machine learning trained ranker is evaluated including by: determining a first abstract syntax tree for a computer language statement” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate performance of a machine learning trained ranker, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a first abstract syntax tree for a computer language statement. Further claim 6 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “determining a second abstract syntax tree for a ground truth computer language statement” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a ground truth computer language statement, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second abstract syntax tree for the ground truth computer language statement. Further claim 6 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “calculating a tree edit distance on the first abstract syntax tree and the second abstract syntax tree” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first and second abstract syntax tree, just as in the independent claims above, mentally calculate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a tree edit distance on the first abstract syntax tree and the second abstract syntax tree. Further claim 6 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “determining a tree edit distance score based on the calculated tree edit distance” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a calculated tree edit distance, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a tree edit distance score based on the calculated tree edit distance. Further claim 6 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “determining model performance based on the determined tree edit distance score” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a determined tree edit distance score, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, model performance based on the determined tree edit distance score. Further, claim 6 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the specified grammar is pre-defined” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a specified grammar, just as in the independent claims above, mentally pre-define, with or without the use of pen and paper, the specified grammar. Further, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the specified grammar includes at least one rule specifying a valid table and valid columns permitted to be added to the valid table” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a specified grammar, just as in the independent claims above, mentally include, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one rule specifying a valid table and valid columns permitted to be added to the valid table in the specified grammar. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 9, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “transform the natural language input to the output in a computer language includes ordering a “from” token to precede a “select” token” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate tokens, just as in the independent claims above, mentally order, with or without the use of pen and paper, a “from” token to precede a “select” token” when transforming the natural language input to an output in a computer language. Further, claim 9 recites additional element of “using the machine learning trained converter” which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, it recites additional element of “wherein the natural language input is created using a low-code platform” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 11, it recites additional element of “wherein the natural language input is created based at least in part on a suggestion or an auto-completion” which are merely insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further claim 11 recites addition element of “a user interface” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, it recites additional element of “wherein the user interface includes a drop-down menu displaying the suggestion or the auto-completion” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 13, it recites additional element of “wherein the suggestion or the auto-completion is displayed in real-time in response to a user input of at least a portion of the natural language input” which are merely insignificant data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 13 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 14, it recites additional abstract recitation of “wherein the suggestion or the auto-completion is determined based at least in part on valid entities to be searched” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate valid entities to be searched, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, the suggestion or the auto-completion based at least in part on the valid entities to be searched”. Further, claim 14 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 15, it recites additional element of “wherein the natural language input is received via a user interface” and “the user interface displays instructions for forming the natural language input” which are merely insignificant data gathering and output activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide and/or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 15 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 16, it recites additional element of “wherein the output in the computer language is executable to perform the desired computer task” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 16 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 16 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 17, it recites additional element of “wherein the desired computer task includes retrieving data from a relational database” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 17 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 18, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the output in the computer language includes a Structured Query Language (SQL) statement” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an output in a computer language, just as in the independent claims above, mentally include, with or without the use of pen and paper, a Structured Query Language (SQL) statement in the output in the computer language. Further, claim 18 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
To overcome this rejection, highly specific technical amendments to independent claims have been introduced. The amendments directly address the internal logic and computational architecture. Specifically, the amended claims specify that the machine learning trained converter operates based on a specified grammar for the computer language, limiting eligible options for a token to include in the output in the computer language, "wherein the specified grammar comprises a production rule requiring a source table identifier token to be processed prior to a column selection token to constrain the eligible options for the column selection token to data fields associated with the source table identifier token." Examples of support for the amendments can be found in the specification, without limitation, at paragraphs [0037] and
[0047].
In standard SQL syntax, SELECT precedes FROM. However, by architecting the internal grammar of the machine learning converter to invert this computational order, the system achieves a profound efficiency. When the constrained decoder parses the FROM token, it immediately caches the valid data fields (columns) associated with that specific table from the underlying data model schema. Consequently, when the model advances to generating the SELECT tokens, the vocabulary of eligible options can be dynamically and aggressively constrained strictly to the data fields that actually exist within the identified source table.
The mental process exception is strictly limited to human activities such as standard observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and cannot be expanded to limitations that cannot practically be executed in the human mind. Using a machine learning trained converter to limit eligible options for a token based on a specified grammar containing a specific inverted production rule cannot be performed in the human mind. A human being, even with pen and paper, cannot compute tensor operations across potentially billions of neural network parameters, calculate vocabulary-wide probability distributions, parse thousands of simultaneous beam search branches, and dynamically apply an inverted abstract syntax tree (FROM before SELECT) rule to mask prediction logits in real-time. This limitation represents a fundamental restructuring of how a specific class of computer software processes tensor data, falling completely outside the realm of mental cognition.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection above, it is the Examiner’s position that the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the §101 rejection. While the Examiner agrees that the claim language of “wherein the specified grammar comprises a production rule requiring a source table identifier token to be processed prior to a column selection token to constrain the eligible options for the column selection token to data fields associated with the source table identifier token” is not a mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim language is an additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the claim limitation “wherein the specified grammar comprises a production rule requiring a source table identifier token to be processed prior to a column selection token to constrain the eligible options for the column selection token to data fields associated with the source table identifier token” is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The precedential Ex Parte Desjardins decision establishes that improvements to the operational efficiency, storage requirements, and computational complexity of a machine learning model itself are patent-eligible technical improvements. As noted in the specification (e.g., see [0024], [0027], [0058], [0102]) traditional deep learning techniques for robust SQL generation require massive large language models (LLMs) that demand expensive graphical processing units (GPUs). Enabling a computer to perform a highly complex generative task using significantly less computational hardware is the quintessential definition of improving computer functionality. By addressing semantic hallucinations (e.g., generating column names that do not exist in the relational database schema), the system improves executability, overcoming a fundamental, inherent unreliability in probabilistic neural networks. Because the claim recites the specific structural implementation (the FROM before SELECT production rule) that directly yields these computational improvements, the claims integrate the recited machine learning processing into a practical application that improves computer functionality by changing how the model computes and applies token eligibility during decoding.
The foregoing amendments are not to be taken as an admission of unpatentability of any of the claims prior to the amendments.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As responded to above, it is the Examiner’s position that the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the §101 rejection. Specifically, the claim language of “wherein the specified grammar comprises a production rule requiring a source table identifier token to be processed prior to a column selection token to constrain the eligible options for the column selection token to data fields associated with the source table identifier token” is not a mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1 but an additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the claim limitation is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim limitation cannot be directed to improving computer functionality. The Applicant appears to argue improvements that are no necessarily realized in the claims such as “a highly complex generative task using significantly less computational hardware“, “addressing semantic hallucinations”, “improves executability, overcoming a fundamental, inherent unreliability in probabilistic neural networks” and “the FROM before SELECT production rule”.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197