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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended. Claims 21-40 are pending and rejected in the application.
Reason for Withdrawal of 35 USC § 103 Rejection
Momen-Pour, Carston, and Shan alone, or in combination, fail to describe or render obvious, performing recursive searching using a configuration-driven dynamic parameter that controls recursion depth. Specifically, the claim recites a query definition including a query condition with a dynamic execution-path parameter defined by a string that specifies a search route from a parent to a child item and references a key associated with a depth parameter, all configured within a configuration document. The query engine converts the query definition into native execution instructions and calculates the dynamic parameter based on the configured string, using the dynamic parameter together with the depth parameter in a conditional to control the depth of a recursive, level-by-level search. The prior art does not disclose or suggest determining recursion depth through such a dynamically calculated parameter derived from a configuration-defined execution path, nor integrating this mechanism into native query execution instructions, and instead relies on static or hardcoded recursion controls. Accordingly, the claimed combination is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art and is therefore deemed novel and non-obvious. However, the amendment does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Arguments
Applicant Argues
Abstract Ideas relates to information being converted into a standardized format that enables further processing of the standardized format by a database. The example indicates that the claims recited are patent eligible because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by using the standardized formatting for centralized storage of information. Similarly, the current claims also integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a technological improvement by converting a query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of a data structure to efficiently perform a recursive query.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
This claim is ineligible under §101 because it is directed to the abstract idea of organizing and retrieving information from a data structure using a recursive search with a configurable depth parameter, which is a fundamental data processing concept. The recited steps—defining a query, providing it to a generic query engine, converting it into execution instructions, performing the search, and outputting results—are routine and conventional computer functions, and elements like the “dynamic parameter,” “string defining a search route,” and “configuration document” merely represent data and rules rather than any technological improvement. Under the framework of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the claim fails to recite an inventive concept because it relies on generic computing components to implement an abstract idea without improving computer functionality or providing a specific technical solution.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-27 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 21 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 21 recites a method for performing recursive searching of items of a data structure having a data model, the method comprising:
specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;
converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a query engine” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a query engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 21 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the query engine, “specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;” encompasses mentally a person specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document.
Next, but for the query engine, “converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search” encompasses mentally a person converting the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The mere nominal recitation of a system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 recites
providing the query definition as an input to the query engine;
obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions; and
outputting query results.
Here, “providing the query definition as an input to the query engine” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In addition, “outputting query results” amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 21 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 21 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein outputting the query results comprises at least one of outputting the query results as a flat output, displaying the results in a tree grid view or displaying the results as a graph visualization.” of dependent claim 22 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein an element of the query definition is specified by a security rule.” of dependent claim 23 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 23 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the data model of the data structure is at least one of a hierarchical data model, a dynamic data model or a self-describing data model” of dependent claim 24 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference.” of dependent claim 25 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “further comprising storing the query definition in the data structure” of dependent claim 26 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 26 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “wherein the query execution instructions specify at least one of traversing the data structure upwards or traversing the data structure downwards” of dependent claim 27 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 28-34 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 28 recites a query engine and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 28 recites a query engine, comprising:
specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;
converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a query engine”, “a processor”, and “a memory” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a query engine”, “a processor”, and “a memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 28 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the query engine, “specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;” encompasses mentally a person specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document.
Next, but for the query engine, “converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search.” encompasses mentally a person converting the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The mere nominal recitation of a system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 28 recites
a processor;
a memory containing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the query engine to:
providing the query definition as an input to the query engine;
obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions; and
outputting query results.
Here, “a processor and
a memory containing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the query engine to:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
In addition, “providing the query definition as an input to the query engine” amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, “outputting query results” amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 28 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 28 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein outputting the query results comprises at least one of outputting the query results as a flat output, displaying the results in a tree grid view or displaying the results as a graph visualization.” of dependent claim 29 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein an element of the query definition is specified by a security rule.” of dependent claim 30 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 30 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the data model of the data structure is at least one of a hierarchical data model, a dynamic data model or a self-describing data model” of dependent claim 31 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference.” of dependent claim 32 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “further comprising storing the query definition in the data structure” of dependent claim 33 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 33 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “wherein the query execution instructions specify at least one of traversing the data structure upwards or traversing the data structure downwards” of dependent claim 34 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 34 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 35-40 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 35 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 35 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing program code, which when executed by a processor, cause a query engine to:
specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;
converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a processor”, and “a query engine” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a processor”, and “a query engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 35 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the query engine, “specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document;” encompasses mentally a person specifying one or more elements of a query definition to be executed as instructions in a single query by a query engine, wherein the one or more elements comprise a query condition including a first dynamic parameter of an execution path comprising a string defining a search route from a parent query item to a child query item and the string references a key associated with the name of the depth parameter having the value that controls a depth of a recursive level-by-level search of the data structure, wherein the depth parameter, the key, and the string are configured in a configuration document.
Next, but for the query engine, “converting, by the query engine, the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search” encompasses mentally a person converting the query definition into query execution instructions formatted in a native programming language of the data structure, the query execution instructions specifying the recursive level-by-level search, the query engine further calculating the dynamic parameter based on the string configured in the configuration document, wherein the depth parameter and the string are used as a value in a conditional that determines a depth of the recursive level-by-level search, and using the calculated dynamic parameter with the depth parameter to control the recursive level-by-level search. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 35 recites
providing the query definition as an input to the query engine;
obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions; and
outputting query results.
Here, “providing the query definition as an input to the query engine” amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, “outputting query results” amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 35 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 35 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “obtaining results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein outputting the query results comprises at least one of outputting the query results as a flat output, displaying the results in a tree grid view or displaying the results as a graph visualization.” of dependent claim 36 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 36 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein an element of the query definition is specified by a security rule.” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 37 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the data model of the data structure is at least one of a hierarchical data model, a dynamic data model or a self-describing data model” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 38 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference.” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person specifying the elements of the query definition comprises at least one of specifying a query item, a query item selection property, a query item sort property, a query item available property, or a query reference. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 39 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “further comprising storing the query definition in the data structure” of dependent claim 40 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 40 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brocato et al. U.S. Patent (8,375,014) teaches a translation engine developing a query.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 4, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024