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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 04/30/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the examiner recommends amending the limitation as follows “the input identifying a plurality of operations to be performed in a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and a plurality of objects subject to the s” to correct the antecedent basis issues.
Similar corrections required for claims 8 and 14 seen in claim 1 for having similar limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The following analysis is according to the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites A method comprising: receiving an input, at a computer processor and via a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the input identifying a plurality of operations to be performed in a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and a plurality of objects subject to the operation, at a database layer; processing, by the computer processor, the input to identify the plurality of objects included in the input; determining a referential order of each of the plurality of objects relative to other ones of the plurality of objects in the RDBMS; automatically generating, by the computer processor and in a single iteration, a Structured Query Language (SQL) script for the plurality of operations, by generating individual scripts for each of the at least one of the plurality of the objects according to the referential order and appending the individual scripts to generate the SQL script for the plurality of operations, wherein the script is a set of computer-readable instructions that once executed by a processor, generates a new software database based on the plurality of operations; and outputting the script on the GUI.
The following limitations recite a judicial exception. The limitation “processing, by the computer processor, the input to identify the plurality of objects included in the input”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The limitation “determining a referential order of each of the plurality of objects relative to other ones of the plurality of objects in the RDBMS”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Where the “determining” language in the context of this claim encompasses the user to evaluate and judge a referential order of one object. The limitation “automatically generating, by the computer processor and in a single iteration, a Structured Query Language (SQL) script for the plurality of operations, by generating individual scripts for each of the at least one of the plurality of the objects according to the referential order and appending the individual scripts to generate the SQL script for the plurality of operations” language in the context of this claim encompasses the user to instantly and mentally create a script for two operations which is a plurality of operations with and/or without pen and paper and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. A human may mentally generate a SQL script with a single command for the two objects identified mentally, with pen/paper and/or with use of a generic computer. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with the recited additional elements. The claim recites the additional element of a “computer processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The step, “receiving an input, at a computer processor and via a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the input identifying a plurality of operations to be performed in a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and a plurality of objects subject to the operation, at a database layer;” is recited at a high level of generality which is merely additional pre-activity solution for mere data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further the step, outputting the script on the GUI; is a post solution activity which is merely transmitting data to GUI and is also a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the step “wherein the script is a set of computer-readable instructions that once executed by a processor, generates a new software database based on the plurality of operations;” are “apply it” steps which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further the step “and outputting the script on the GUI” is recited at a high level of generality which is merely additional post-activity solution for displaying data and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely displaying data/information. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The step, “receiving an input, at a computer processor and via a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the input identifying a plurality of operations to be performed in a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and a plurality of objects subject to the operation, at a database layer;”, the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The step “and outputting the script on the GUI”, the courts have identified merely displaying data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Also, the GUI and the RDBMS are generic computing components which are not additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 recite additional mental steps by further identifying, grouping objects and creating and appending to the script that are not patent eligible. Claims 6 recited non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim set 8-13 and claim set 14-17, 19-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-4, 6-7 for having similar limitations. Claim set 8-13 further recites generic components including a processor and/or memory which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 6-8, 12-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (“Script SQL Server objects using DBATools”, Rajendra Gupta, 06/20/2019) hereinafter NPL1 in view of Erickson et al. (US 11,734,236 B1) hereinafter Erickson in view of Buehne et al. (US 2015/0019479 A1) hereinafter Buehne.
Regarding claim 1, NPL1 discloses A method comprising:
receiving an input, at a computer processor and via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (NPL1 [pg. 2, First image illustrates GUI in which “Generate Scripts…” input is received]), the input identifying a plurality of operations to be performed in a [Relational] Database [Management System (RDBMS)] and a plurality of objects subject to the operation, at a database layer (NPL1 [pg. 2-3] illustrate “Select specific database objects” after clicking on “Generate Scripts…” in which a plurality of objects selected are subject to the script generation at the database layer);
processing, by the computer processor, the input to identify the plurality of objects included in the input (NPL1 [pgs. 3-4] illustrate Choosing Objects in which the plurality of objects selected would be processed by the computer running the software);
automatically generating, by the computer processor and, in a single iteration, a Structured Query Language (SQL) script for the plurality of operations, by generating individual scripts for each of the plurality of objects [according to the referential order] and appending the individual scripts to generate the SQL script for the plurality of operations (NPL [pg. 4] illustrates in the bottom image specifying how the scripts for each of the objects should be saved. Where the save to file as a single file is selected and entered in the string as “….\script.sql” and NPL1 [pg. 5] discloses selecting the single file option to generate scripts for multiple objects together in a single SQL file all in a single iteration once the “Finish” button is selected. Thus, appending the individual scripts to generate the SQL script)
NPL1 lacks explicitly
a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)
determining a referential order of each of the plurality of objects relative to other ones of the plurality of objects in the RDBMS;
wherein the script is a set of computer-readable instructions that once executed by a processor, generates a new software database based on the plurality of operations;
according to the referential order and appending the individual scripts to generate the SQL script for the plurality of operations,
outputting the script on the GUI
Erickson teaches
a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) (Erickson [col. 2, lines 44-45] teach “The present disclosure is directed to systems and methods for relational database management.”)
outputting the script on the GUI (Erickson [col. 10, lines 16-19] disclose the SQL script generated are displayed in GUI 294 as illustrated in Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Erickson by adding “a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) and outputting the script on the GUI” in order to enhance data integrity and accuracy through constraints and normalization, improve data consistency via ACID properties, achieve better data security with role-based access, increase scalability to handle large volumes of data, and simplify data management and retrieval using SQL.
Buehne teaches
determining a referential order of each of the plurality of objects relative to other ones of the plurality of objects in the [RDBMS] (Buehne [0024] teaches defining the order or the dependencies of the database objects and scripts);
according to the referential order (Buehne [0024] discloses a schedule based on order or dependencies of the database objects and scripts), wherein the script is a set of computer-readable instructions that once executed by a processor, generates a new software database based on the plurality of operations (Buehne [0018] and [0020] teaches “A database may be migrated into a new software version of the database and/or to a different operating system. Data may be moved or migrated into a new version of database software on a same physical server.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Buehne by adding “determining a referential order of each of the plurality of objects relative to other ones of the plurality of objects; according to the referential order, wherein the script is a set of computer-readable instructions that once executed by a processor, generates a new software database based on the plurality of operations” in order to efficiently ensure data integrity and avoid errors.
Regarding claim 6, NPL1 in view of Erickson and further in view of Buehne combination teach The method of claim 1,
NPL1 lacks explicitly
wherein the plurality of operations includes a SQL operation to be performed on at least one database in the RDBMS
Erickson further discloses
wherein the plurality of operations includes a SQL operation to be performed on at least one database in the RDBMS (Erickson [col. 10, lines 43-46] discloses In addition, the SQL generators can use the metadata 310 when generating SQL scripts to update the tables in a given destination environment with data having the appropriate and compatible metadata. Erickson [col. 2, lines 44-5] and Claim 1 Where the operation is for relational database management system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Erickson by adding “wherein the plurality of operations includes a SQL operation to be performed on at least one database in the RDBMS” in order to enhance data integrity and accuracy through constraints and normalization, improve data consistency via ACID properties, achieve better data security with role-based access, increase scalability to handle large volumes of data, and simplify data management and retrieval using SQL.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1,
Erickson further discloses
wherein the plurality of operations includes migrating at least one database in the RDBMS between two different environments, each of the two different environments being one of a development environment, a test environment, and a deployment environment for the RDBMS (Erickson [col. 3, lines 28-37] Then, once the workflow tasks associated with BT environment are completed, the control table(s) data as modified in the BT environment is/are caused to migrate to a second environment, e.g., FT1 an environment or to another environment. Then, once the workflow tasks associated with the FT1 environment are completed, the control table(s) data as further modified by the FT1 environment, are caused to migrate to a third environment, e.g., the production environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Erickson by adding “wherein the plurality of operations includes migrating at least one database in the RDBMS between two different environments, each of the two different environments being one of a development environment, a test environment, and a deployment environment for the RDBMS” in order to provide significant advantages in software development, quality assurance, and IT operations. The systematic movement of database changes in a controlled manner, often automated through a Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipeline, ensures stability, reliability, and speed in application deployment.
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claims 6. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 13, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 14, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (“Script SQL Server objects using DBATools”, Rajendra Gupta, 06/20/2019) hereinafter NPL1 in view of Erickson et al. (US 11,734,236 B1) hereinafter Erickson in view of Buehne et al. (US 2015/0019479 A1) hereinafter Buehne and further in view of Barajas Gonzalez (US 2020/0314075 A1) hereinafter Barajas.
Regarding claim 2, NPL1 in view of Erickson and further in view of Buehne combination teach The method of claim 1, wherein automatically generating the script comprises:
generating a corresponding script of the individual scripts for each object in each group (NPL1 [pg. 3] teaches choosing objects for generating individual scripts).
the combination lacks explicitly
grouping the plurality of objects based on the referential order; and
Barajas further discloses
grouping the plurality of objects based on the referential order (Barajas [0031] teaches sorting objects and [0041] teaches grouped objects in a group with corresponding object group identifier as illustrated in Fig. 4B element 450); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Barajas by adding “grouping the plurality of objects based on the referential order” in order to enhance data integrity and accuracy through constraints and normalization.
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, further comprising:
Erickson discloses
adding the corresponding script of each object in each group to generate the script (NPL1 [pg. 3] teaches choosing objects for generating individual scripts).
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (“Script SQL Server objects using DBATools”, Rajendra Gupta, 06/20/2019) hereinafter NPL1 in view of Erickson et al. (US 11,734,236 B1) hereinafter Erickson in view of Buehne et al. (US 2015/0019479 A1) hereinafter Buehne and further in view of Eberlein et al. (US 2019/0018874 A1) hereinafter Eberlein and further in view of Peyton et al. (US 8,515,920 B2) hereinafter Peyton.
Regarding claim 4, NPL1 in view Erickson and further in view of Buehne combination teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
determining whether at least one object is missing from the RDBMS;
generating an error message indicative of the at least one object missing; and
including the error message in the script.
Eberlein teaches
determining whether at least one object is missing from the RDBMS (Eberlein [0058] teaches determining when an object is missing when statements are executed against the database. Where the RDBMS was taught by GREAVES and Eberlein is being used to modify GREAVES);
generating an error message indicative of the at least one object missing (Eberlein [0058] teaches the database to return an error message with an object is missing); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Diaz in view of GREAVES combination to incorporate the teachings of Eberlein by adding the following features to the combination and specifically determining whether the at least one object is missing from the RDBMS and generating an error message indicative of the at least one object missing in order to facilitate tenant-based upgrades in an accurate and efficient fashion (Eberlein [0006]).
Peyton teaches
including the error message in the script (Peyton claim 3 teaches script including presenting a notification of an error thus including the error message to be presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eberlein determination of missing object and generation of the error message and to incorporate the teachings of Peyton by adding including the error message in the script in order to decrease wasted developer time from debugging unknown errors where the error message permits notification of the exact error.
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 rejection remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the 101 remarks.
Regarding the remark that the claims provide a technical solution to a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, the examiner respectively disagrees as the claim language is recited at a high-level of generality in which plurality of objects may be interpreted as two objects and plurality of operations may be interpreted as two operations. For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to 103 rejection remarks
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, 19-20 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.
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 Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193