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
In amendments dated 12/12/25, Applicant amended claims 1 and 11, 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; deriving, based on the first data, a data access query in the second query language for locating second data using data extracted 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, and causing the data access software by using the data access query to locate the second data stored in a second data store, 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 query language is evaluating and a mental process, and deriving a query based on data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and locating second data using a data access query is evaluating the data for relevance and 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; 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; and wherein the first data store includes a search engine index for the first data and the first data is a subset of the second data, and storing data in a search engine index is 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 storing step is also a routine and conventional activity 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 wherein: 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.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 1 and 11 for reciting “the first data is a subset of the second data” twice and for the last limitation of claim 11 reciting “the first data,”, in view of “the first data is a subset of the second data” being removed from the last limitation in each claim and the last limitation of claim 11 reciting “the first data,”, these objections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 for nonstatutory double patenting claims 1, 6, 8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 11,468,130 and rejections of claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 for nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-3,6-9, 11-13, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent 11,928,166, in view of amendments reciting the data access software being adapted for batch retrieval and processing which is not claimed in either the ‘130 or ‘166 patent, these rejections are withdrawn. 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 pages 6-7 of his Remarks Applicant discuses Step 2A Prong One and asserts none of the recited limitations could be performed in the human mind. Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states "The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation," and "nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer." Examiner disagrees and, as stated in the rejections maintained above, Examiner believes that “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;” “deriving, based on the first data, a data access query in the second query language for locating second data using data extracted 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;” and “causing the data access software by using the data access query to locate the second data stored in a second data store, 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” are each mental processes because they are each executed using a generic computer as a tool and are recited broadly and either accomplishable in the human mind or on paper or involve mental processes such as evaluation.
On pages 8-10 of his Remarks 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).” Examiner disagrees and notes the claims lack inventive details that might show a specific improvement in the technology of accessing and integrating data from different data stores that each use respective software with different query languages or to a function of a computer, such as how the invention identifies a second query language, how the invention derives a data access query, or how the invention improves upon accessing and/or retrieving relevant data per specification paragraph 0004, 0073-0075, 0044, and 0046. Merely querying and accessing data and deriving a query are not improvements to either step or to the fields of data access and retrieval. Examiner notes the claims in Example 42 at least recites minimal details but recites activities that are not simply nominal to the inventive entity but are mentioned in the Background as steps towards solving the problem of sharing updated records with providers. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) states “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” The additional elements are receiving first data, sending a query somewhere (Examiner believes to a second data store), and storing data in a search engine index, which are each nominal to the inventive entity and do not direct the invention towards the problem of faster/more efficiently accessing/retrieving relevant data, and thus they do not integrate the mental processes into a practical application.
On page 10 of his Remarks Applicant mentions Step 2B and discusses the 101 Memo dated August 4, 2025. Examiner notes the additional elements are each routine and conventional activities in the field. Furthermore, Examiner nots the claims recite using the data access query to locate second data but the second data is not retrieved, hence there can be no improvement in retrieving relevant records as stated in specification paragraph 0004. Thus Examiner believes the question of eligibility is not a close call here.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 3/10/26