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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/13/26 has been entered.
In amendments dated 7/13/26, Applicant amended clams 1, 5, 11, and 5, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 11 each recites identifying a second query language for a data access software, wherein the second query language for the data access software is different than the first query language for the search engine software; generating, based on the first data, a data access query in the second query language for locating second data in a second data store by at least: extracting one or more identifiers from the one or more data records, the second data comprising one or more data objects, the first data being a subset of the second data, the one or more identifiers identifying the one or more data objects stored in the second data store; and generating the data access query that includes the one or more identifiers; and causing the data access software to execute to locate the second data stored in the second data store by using the data access query, the data access software being adapted for batch retrieval and processing, the second data store being different from a first data store storing the first data. Identifying a second query language is evaluating and a mental process; and generating a data access query in the second query language, extracting one or more identifiers from one or more data records, and generating the data access query that includes the one or more identifiers are each recited broadly and are each mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Causing data access software to execute to locate the second data involves evaluating and is a mental process. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving, from search engine software, first data comprising one or more data records, wherein the search engine software uses a first query language to access the first data, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and sending, to data access software, the data access query subsequent to the search engine software using the first query language to access the first data, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 also recites one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions, which are generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0004 states “as the amount of data in a database grows, the amount of time required to retrieve data relevant to a query may also increase. This may hinder the usefulness of the database for online use.” Examiner also notes Applicant began discussing on page 8 of his Remarks, that specification paragraphs 0069 and 0073-0075 describe improvements to efficiency in accessing and retrieving data, and these improvements are also mentioned in paragraphs 0044 and 0046 describing how some queries are limited in how much data they can retrieve from certain servers due to, for example, low-latency connections to said servers. Paragraph 0047 describes the data for which retrieval is so limited as “high-value” data, and paragraph 0056 describes how “data access software 152 may be adapted for batch retrieval and processing of data facilitating scalability over vast quantities of hardware” and “may also be more suited to retrieving and processing large quantities of data than the search engine software 142” and “data access software 152 may also be more tolerant of high latencies than the search engine software.” Examiner believes the improvements to data retrieval systems may be therein these paragraphs but is not recited in the claims. Thus the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claim limitations as a whole, the receiving and sending steps are receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0035 and figure 1, and are both routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more processors and one or more memories are still generic components of a computer system. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental process.
Claims 2 and 12 each recites sending, to search engine software, a search engine query to cause the search engine software to locate the first data stored in the first data store, and sending a query is sending data across a network which is routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 3 and 13 each recites receiving, from the data access software, the second data, in response to sending the data access query, and receiving data across a network are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 4 and 14 each recites wherein a time between sending the data access query to the data access software and receiving the second data in response is greater than a time between sending a search engine query to the search engine software and receiving the first data in response, and gauging the time between sending and receiving data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 5 and 15 each recites the first data store includes a search engine index for the first data, and storing a search index is a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and the search engine index is configured to store the one or more data records, and storing data in a memory is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 6 and 16 each recites wherein at least one data record of the one or more data records requires a first access speed faster than a second access speed of a data record not stored in the search engine index, and gauging access speed is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 7 and 17 each recites wherein the second data store is a distributed data store, and storing data is in a memory is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 8 and 18 each recites wherein the search engine index stores a subset of data stored in the distributed data store, and storing data is in a memory is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 9 and 19 each recites further comprising: in response to receiving the first data, sending the first data to a client device; receiving, from the data access software, the second data; and sending the second data to the client device, and receiving and sending data across a network is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 10 and 20 each recites wherein the data access query is sent to the data access software using one or more application programming interface (API) calls, and sending a query is sending data is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Moulinier et al (US 20060173886) teaches receiving a query in one language, such as German, parsing the query into terms in said language which are translated into a target language and matched to terms from pre-translated documents in said target language, does not teach generating a query in a second or target language, batch retrieval ability of data access software, or separate data stores for the documents (paragraphs 0007-0008, 0015, 0029-39 figure 2); and
Ward (US 9,104,762) teaches a database format for a particular query language for managing data for a particular database type, with different database types supported by different database engines such that queries in a language are translated into other languages for data retrieval, does not teach generating a query in a second or target language, batch retrieval ability of data access software, or separate data stores for the documents (columns 1-3 lines 63-4, columns 10-11 lines 32-26 figure 4).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 7 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the claim does not recite a judicial exception. Examiner disagrees and notes the limitations identified as mental processes in the rejection above (identifying a second query language, generating a data access query in the second query language, extracting one or more identifiers from one or more data records, generating the data access query that includes the one or more identifiers, and causing data access software to execute to locate the second data). Each of these limitations are recited broadly and a BRI of each includes use of a nominal physical aid such as pen and paper. On pages 8-11 Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two and asserts "claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (e.g., access and integrating data from different data stores
that each use respective software with different query languages)." Applicant further asserts claim 1 “adds meaningful limitations of the series of specific actions as recited in claim 1 that are implemented to improve efficiency of data retrieval systems by enabling accessibility across different data sources that use software with different query languages, for example, for batch retrieval and processing of data.” Examiner disagrees as the mental process limitations are not specific improvements but are recited broadly and each use a computer as a tool to perform its activity. Furthermore, each limitation lacks details showing how the invention accomplishes each activity and which might show how the invention achieves an improvement in access and integrating data from different data stores that each use respective software with different query languages. Examiner found support in specification paragraph 0075 for the amended limitations of extracting one or more identifiers from one or more data records identifying one or more objects in a second data store and generating a data access query including the recited one or more identifiers. While the “causing the data access software to execute” limitation recites “the data access software being adapted for batch retrieval and processing,” the significance of that ability is not recited nor is a related ability for an unrecited first data store recited nor how a such abilities may contribute to an improvement by the invention.
On pages 9-10 Applicant discusses the USPTO 101 Memo which states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” Examiner notes the claims do not recite a particular solution to the stated problem of enabling accessibility across different data sources that use software with different query languages. On pages 10-11 Applicant Example 42 in which the additional elements integrates the claim into a practical application. Examiner notes the additional elements in the present claims are receiving first data comprising one or more data records and sending a data access query to data access software, which are data gathering and output steps and are insignificant extra-solution activity that generally link the claims to a computer environment. Thus per MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) Examiner does not believe the additional elements integrate these claims into a practical application.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/18/26
Prosecution Insights