DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant's communication filed on 07/21/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant's remarks and amendments, in response to the last Office Action, have been considered with the results that follow:
Claims 1, 10-11, 20-21, and 30-32 are amended
Claims 1-32 are now pending in this application.
The previously raised objections to claims 1-10, and 31-32 are maintained as described in the Claim Objections section below.
The previously raised 101 rejections of claims are maintained as described in the 35 U.S.C. §101 section below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks under Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 in pages 13-17:
With respect to arguments: “…A human mind cannot maintain a database comprising objects stored in a computer-readable medium, create schema fragments using an application programming interface or schema editor, attach schema fragment identifiers by reference to stored database objects, overwrite those objects within the database, or maintain immutable schema fragments while simultaneously preserving predecessor and successor versions. These are not acts of observation or judgment that can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper. Rather, they are operations that require the functionality of a computer database and specialized software mechanisms for defining, storing, updating, and versioning schema fragments.…”:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, and notes that the above-referenced/amended limitations in the claim are recited at a high level of generality, and do not appear to include any specific approaches that would extend far beyond the concept of a general-purpose computer and/or preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. As also elaborated in the USC 101 sections in prior and current office actions, the examiner maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above referenced limitations merely involve the user keeping track of some data, creating schema fragment data, correlating the tracked data with the schema fragment data while including its customizable fields, and updating tracked data with any modifications to customizable fields - all of which can be performed using pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of further limitations merely involve performing the above steps while observing that the original schema fragment data is tracked and not changeable, and that tracked data can be modified through customizable fields. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the limitations, 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.
With respect to the arguments “…Nor is the recitation of an API or schema editor merely an insignificant data gathering step. The claims do not merely gather information before performing an abstract process. Instead, the API or schema editor is the mechanism by which schema fragments are created within the claimed database architecture. Those schema fragments subsequently become immutable database objects that are referenced by other stored objects through schema fragment identifiers...”:
The examiner notes that the claims, as drafted, do not appear to describe any specific approaches of using an API or a schema editor in order to create schema fragments or what a schema editor/API entails, and thereby maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation ‘creating one or more schema fragments using an API or a schema editor’ merely involves gathering pieces of data. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and being computer-implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner maintains that these limitations do not extend the given claim beyond the scope of a mere general-purpose computer.
With respect to arguments “…Even assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that some aspect of the claims could be viewed as involving the organization of information, the claims nevertheless integrate any such concept into a practical application. The focus of the claims is not upon organizing information in the abstract, but upon improving the manner in which a computer database manages evolving schema definitions. Conventional database systems typically modify existing schema definitions when new fields are introduced, often requiring migration of existing objects and sacrificing prior schema definitions. The present claims instead employ immutable schema fragments that remain preserved within the database while updated schema fragments are created and referenced by updated objects. The claims further provide predecessor and successor references between immutable schema fragments, thereby permitting navigation among different schema versions without modifying historical schema definitions. These limitations define a specific architecture for schema version management that improves the operation of the database itself… The Federal Circuit has repeatedly recognized that claims directed to improvements in computer technology are not abstract merely because they are implemented in software… The present claims are of the same character. They are directed to a specific solution for managing evolving schema definitions within a computer database through immutable schema fragments, reference-based schema versioning, and preservation of historical schema definitions… Here, the claims do not simply store data or manipulate information in a conventional manner. Instead, they recite a particular implementation in which immutable schema fragments are maintained, …and predecessor and successor relationships are maintained among schema fragment versions. Taken together, these limitations define a particular technological solution for schema evolution within a database environment rather than the mere automation of a business or organizational practice.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. As described in the Claim Objections section, claims 1-32 have been objected in view of confusing scope/language of limitations in the independent claims, specifically “…wherein the schema fragments in the database are immutable such that original defined schema fragments are retained in the database while a custom object is updated by the custom fields that are edited in updated or created fragments in the database.”. It appears that the applicant is referring to these limitations along with limitations in claim 9 as providing technical improvements in computer technology. In view of the outstanding claim objections, the examiner is unable to determine if the current claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner also notes that none of the claims appears to describe permitting navigation among different schema versions without modifying historical schema definitions. The applicant is requested to clarify and/or point to the relevant limitations.
As such, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claim 1, the scope of limitation ‘…maintaining a database comprising one or more objects stored in the database;’ is confusing. The examiner interprets the limitation to be ‘…maintaining a database comprising one or more objects stored therein’. Examiner suggests applicant to clarify or rephrase the claim as appropriate. Dependent claims 2-10 are also objected to for the above reasons.
In independent claims 1, 11, 21 and 31, the scope of the limitation ‘…wherein the schema fragments in the database are immutable such that original defined schema fragments are retained in the database while a custom object is updated by the custom fields that are edited in updated or created fragments in the database.’ is confusing. It is unclear if the claim element ‘a custom object’ is different from ‘objects, the object’ in the preceding limitations, and the meaning of the phrase ‘…custom fields that are edited in updated or created fragments in the database’ is confusing. Examiner suggests applicant to clarify or rephrase the claim as appropriate. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30 and 32 are also objected to for the above reasons.
In independent claim 31, the scope of limitation ‘wherein a database is maintained that comprises the one or more multiple objects stored in the database…’ is confusing. The examiner interprets the limitation to be ‘wherein a database is maintained that comprises the one or more multiple objects stored therein’. Examiner suggests applicant to clarify or rephrase the claim as appropriate. Dependent claim 32 is also objected to for the above reasons.
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.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 21, and 31,
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The limitations of “…maintaining a database comprising one or more objects…updating one or more schema fragments; assigning one or more default values to custom fields wherein each schema fragment should comprise at least one custom field; updating the one or more objects by attaching a schema fragment id by reference; including all the custom fields of the schema fragment by default in the object; and editing the values of the custom fields in the object, wherein the schema fragments in the database are immutable such that original defined schema fragments are retained in the database while a custom object is updated by the custom fields that are edited in updated or created fragments in the database.”, 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. That is, other than reciting “computer implemented”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “computer implemented” language, the claim encompasses the user keeping track of some data, then creating original schema fragment data that includes at least one customizable field, and modifying the schema fragment data by entering default values for the customizable fields in it. But for the “computer implemented” language, the claim further encompasses the user correlating the tracked data with the schema fragment data while making sure all the customizable fields in it are included by default in the tracked data. But for the “computer implemented” language, the claim further encompasses the user modifying customizable fields in the tracked data, while observing that the original schema fragment data is tracked and not changeable and tracked data can be modified through customizable fields.
Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas of a mental process and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: ‘maintaining a database comprising one or more objects stored in the database, creating one or more schema fragments using an API or a schema editor’. The maintaining/storing and creating steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“computer”). Accordingly, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited, the 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.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claim: ‘maintaining a database comprising one or more objects stored in the database, creating one or more schema fragments using an API or a schema editor’, are at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and being computer-implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The specification does not provide any indication that such data collection or manipulation is performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the maintaining/storing/creating steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer memo. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 31,
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The limitations of “define schema fragments that comprises multiple custom data fields wherein each schema fragment can be used to add custom data fields to multiple objects, wherein each schema fragment is defined by a set of custom fields representing similar kind of data fields, wherein each schema fragment can define multiple objects from multiple schemas…schema fragments in the database are immutable such that original defined schema fragments are retained in the database while a custom object is updated by the custom fields that are edited in updated or created fragments in the database”, 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. That is, other than reciting “computer implemented”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “computer implemented” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about schema fragments (original schema fragment data) comprising plurality of custom fields that can be added to object data. Furthermore, but for the “computer implemented” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about custom fields in a fragment representing similar data, fragments representing plurality of object data in plurality of schema data. But for the “computer implemented” language, the claim further encompasses the user observing that the original schema fragment data is tracked and not changeable and tracked data can be modified through customizable fields. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas of a mental process and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: ‘…database is maintained that comprises the one or more multiple objects stored in the database’. The maintaining/storing steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“computer”). Accordingly, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited, the 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.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claim: ‘…database is maintained that comprises the one or more multiple objects stored in the database’, are at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and being computer-implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The specification does not provide any indication that such data collection or manipulation is performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the maintaining/storing steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer memo. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30 and 32,
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Similarly, claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11, claims 22-30 are dependent on claim 21 and include all the limitations of claim 21 and claim 32 is dependent on claim 31 and include all the limitations of claim 31. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30 and 32 recite the same abstract ideas of a mental process.
Claims 2, 12 and 22 further recite the additional limitations of ‘deleting the custom fields… including new custom fields… updating the schema fragment id…’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 13 and 23 further recite the additional limitations ‘deleting the custom fields… including new fields… updating fragment ids…’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 14 and 24 further recite the additional limitations regarding ‘reading the object… verifying for a custom fragment id… checking for any update… updating custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values… substituting the fragment id…’ which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 15 and 25 further recite the additional limitations of ‘reading the object… verifying for a custom fragment id… checking for any update… updating custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values… substituting the schema fragment id… overwriting the object…’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 16 and 26 further recite the additional limitations of ‘verifying for a custom fragment id… checking for any update available… updating multiple objects… updating the custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values… substituting the schema fragment id...’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 17 and 27 further recite the additional limitations of ‘verifying for a custom fragment id… checking for any update… updating multiple objects… updating the custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values… substituting the schema fragment id… overwriting the multiple objects…’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 18 and 28 further recite the additional limitations of ‘verifying for a custom fragment id… checking for any update… updating object…updating the custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values… substituting the schema fragment id…, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9, 19 and 29 further recite the additional limitations of ‘verifying for a custom schema fragment id… checking for any update…updating object… updating the custom fields… deleting previous version… assigning default values…
substituting the schema fragment id… overwriting the object…’, which elaborate in
the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 20, 30 and 32 further recite the additional limitations of ‘schema fragments are immutable … are used for forward or backward references to access predecessor or successor fragments in the database.’, which elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 ANUGEETHA KUNJITHAPATHAM whose telephone number is (408) 918-7510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PT.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
