DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed April 16, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are currently amended. Claims 9, 18 and 27 are canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-26 are pending in this application.
Claim 6 has the improper status identifier of “Currently amended” as there do not appear to be any amendments to the claim.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20-23 of copending Application No. 18/675,636 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is obvious that claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20-23 of copending Application No. 18/675,636 teach the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26 of the present application.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the present application, claims 4, 12, and 20 of copending application 18/675,636 teach the claimed limitations, with the exception of parsing queries. However, it is obvious that in order to determine sub-queries and examine metadata of each query, some type of parsing of queries is required.
Although claims 5, 13, and 21 of copending Application No. 18/675,636 teach the limitations of claims 3, 12, and 21 of the present application, claims 5, 13, and 21 of copending Application No. 18/675,636 do not include intervening limitations of claims 4, 12, and 20. However, it would have been obvious to combine the limitations of claims 4, and 12, and 20, which include and dependent on claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, of the copending application because claims 1, 9 and 17 state that determining query relationships may include both determining a first set of one or more subqueries that are referenced by the main query and/or determining a second set of one or more subqueries that reference the main query, which is further described in claims 4, 12, and 20. Further, Fig. 3 of copending application 18/675,636 shows that given a main query, processing is divided into two paths, one for sub-queries that are referenced by the main query and one for queries that reference the main query as a sub-query. As such, it is obvious that the limitations of claims 4, 12, and 20 may be performed in combination to determine all query relationships.
Therefore, the same rationale applies for claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, and 24 of the present application. Further, the limitations of claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, and 24 are rejected as follows: Claims 5, 14, and 23 of the present application are rejected as being obvious in view of claims 6, 14, and 22 of copending application 18/675,636. Claims 6, 15, and 24 of the present application are rejected as being obvious in view of claims 7, 15, and 23 of copending application 18/675,636.
Claims 8, 17 and 26 of the present application are rejected as being obvious over claims 4, 12 and 20 of the copending application. Although, claims 4, 12 and 20 do not explicitly recite collecting results from a query execution engine and displaying on a user interface, claims 4, 12 and 20 (via intervening claims 1, 9 and 17) do recite executing a query and displaying results of the query. It is obvious that executing a query produces results that are collected for display. Further, it is obvious that the displaying query results requires a user interface.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “the configuration” in the fifth from last line of the claims should be “a configuration.”
Further, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the term “"the reconfigured query sub-components" in the third from last line of the claims because the claims only previously mention “change the configuration of query sub-components.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitsis et al. (US 20170004173 A1) (‘Simitsis’) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2022/0342884 A1) (‘Kumar’), and further in view of Choudhury et al. (US 2018/0329958 A1) (‘Choudhury’).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 19, Simitsis teaches a computer-implemented method, a computing apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising:
a processor (paragraph 14);
a memory (paragraph 16);
determining, by a processor, one or more query relationships for a main query, formula and/or expression (paragraphs 17 and 27) wherein determining the one or more query relationships comprises:
determining, by the processor, a first set of one or more sub-queries that are referenced by the main query (paragraphs 29-31);
loading, by the processor, a plurality of containers (i.e. databases) (paragraphs 24-26, 39 and 41); and
examining, by the processor, the plurality of containers (paragraphs 24-26, 34 and 41);
wherein, for each query in each of the containers, the method further comprises: parsing, by the processor, each query in each of the containers (i.e. generating query tree and subquery tree) (paragraphs 26-27 and 30);
displaying, by the processor, an interactive entity relationship graph on a user interface for displaying the main query and the one or more query relationships, wherein the interactive entity relationship graph comprises nodes representing queries and edges representing references among queries across multiple containers (Fig. 6A, paragraphs 10, 17, 19, 27 and 53-54);
executing, by the processor, the main query based on user interaction (paragraphs 11, 18 and 43);
displaying, by the processor, results for the main query (Fig. 6C, paragraphs 11, 19-20, and 57);
generating, by the processor, one or more performance metrics (Simitsis, paragraphs 32-33 and 43);
mapping, by the processor, each performance component of the interactive entity relationship graph to a corresponding query based on the determined query relationships (Simitsis, paragraphs 11, 19, 37 and 57);
overlaying, by the processor, the mapped one or more performance metrics (Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 19-20 and 54) on the at least one node and one link in the interactive entity relationship graph for display on the user interface (Simitsis, Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 44, 53, and 56-57),
wherein, after displaying the results for the main query and the overlaid mapped performance metrics on the interactive entity relationship graph, the processor is configured to allow the user to select and change the configuration of the interactive entity relationship graph displayed on the user interface (Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 58-59 and 61) and iteratively update the query tree as queries are executed to display a reconfigured interactive entity relationship graph that shows changes during configuration as the user builds a final result (paragraphs 20, 44, and 47-48).
Simitsis does not explicitly teach determining, by the processor, a second set of one or more queries that reference the main query as a sub-query; or determining, by the processor, whether the main query is referenced.
Kumar teaches parsing queries (paragraphs 17 and 29);
collecting one or more referenced queries in a metadata (paragraph 33);
determining, by the processor, a second set of one or more queries that reference the main query as a sub-query (i.e. upstream dependency) (paragraphs 30 and 32); and
determining, by the processor, whether the main query is referenced (i.e. upstream dependency) (paragraphs 30 and 32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Simitsis to determine whether the main query is referenced as taught by Kumar to enable upstream dependencies as well as downstream dependencies to be determined, thereby enabling a complete query lineage to be determined (Kumar, abstract) and analyzed with respect to query execution performance metrics. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination because Simitsis teaches determining query dependencies in a query tree having multiple levels and thus it is obvious that upstream dependencies may be determined.
Further with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, Simitsis does not explicitly teach a user selecting and changing the configuration of query sub-components and iteratively rerun the reconfigured query sub-component to display a reconfigured interactive entity relationship graph that shows changes during configuration as the user builds a final result.
Choudhury teaches a user selecting and changing the configuration of query sub-components (paragraphs 18, 192, 196, 201) and iteratively rerun the reconfigured query sub-component to display a reconfigured interactive entity relationship graph that shows changes during configuration as the user builds a final result (paragraphs 78 and 201-202).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interactive entity relationship graph of Simitsis to allow a user to select and change query components and rerun the reconfigured query components to show changes on the graph as taught by Choudhury because Simitsis teaches a user changing configuration of an interactive graph and updating the graph as queries execute, and thus incorporating the user also changing query sub-components as taught by Choudhury would yield predictable results, namely updating the interactive graph based on user input. Further, the modification would enable a query graph building tool that enhance usability by providing intuitive ways to specify query graphs and their subgraphs and providing an intuitive way to present the results of continuous subgraph matching queries (Choudhury, abstract).
With respect to claims 2, 11 and 20, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches wherein determining, by the processor, the first set of one or more sub-queries that are referenced by the main query comprises:
parsing, by the processor, the main query (i.e. generating query tree) (Simitis, paragraphs 26-27);
collecting, by the processor, one or more referenced queries (subqueries) in a metadata (Simitis, paragraphs 29-31); and
loading, by the processor, a definition for each of the one or more referenced queries (Simitis, paragraphs 26, 29 and 30).
With respect to claims 3, 12, and 21, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches wherein collecting the one or more referenced queries in the metadata comprises: examining, by the processor, stored metadata for one or more explicit references to one or more related objects (Kumar, paragraphs 25, 32 and 37); and
using, by the processor, the metadata to retrieve the one or more related objects (Kumar, paragraphs 25, 33, and 37).
With respect to claims 4, 13, and 22, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches wherein collecting the one or more referenced queries in the metadata comprises:
reading, by the processor, the main query into a parsing engine built for language associated with the main query (Kumar, paragraphs 29-30 and 32);
using, by the processor, the parsing engine to convert the main query into an abstract syntax tree of one or more query-language tokens (Simitsis, paragraphs 26-27; Kumar, paragraph 32);
matching, by the processor, one or more identifying tokens with one or more related objects, thereby populating the metadata (Kumar, paragraphs 32-33);
executing, by the processor, one or more functions on the one or more identifying tokens to match the one or more related objects, thereby populating the metadata (Kumar, paragraphs 32-33); and
using, by the processor, the metadata to retrieve the one or more related objects (Kumar, paragraphs 25, 33, and 37).
With respect to claims 5, 14, and 23, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches, wherein loading a query by reference comprises: loading, by the processor, a unique identifier associated with each of the one or more referenced queries (Simitsis, paragraphs 29 and 31; Kumar, paragraph 28).
With respect to claims 6, 15, and 24, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches, wherein displaying the relationship graph comprises: drawing, by the processor, the node on a graph representing the main query, with a left port for revealing a dependency relationship and a right port for revealing a usage relationship (Simitsis, Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 53-54; also Kumar, lineage graph, paragraphs 33).
With respect to claims 7, 16, and 25, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches wherein executing the main query comprises:
passing, by the processor, a unique query definition (i.e. query plan) into a query execution engine (Simitsis, paragraphs 26 and 40); and
executing, by the processor, the unique query definition (Simitsis, paragraphs 11, 18 and 43).
With respect to claims 8, 17, and 26, Simitsis in view of Kumar and Choudhury teaches wherein displaying the results for the main query comprises:
collecting, by the processor, data results from a query execution engine (Simitsis, paragraphs 11, 18 and 33); and
displaying, by the processor, the data results on a user interface (Simitsis, Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 19, 53 and 57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Simitsis fails to teach overlaying mapped performance metrics on at least one node and one link in the interactive entity relationship graph. The examiner disagrees. Simitsis shows overlaying performance metrics on at least one node and one link in the interactive entity relationship graph in element 638 in Fig. C (paragraph 57).
Applicant further argues that Simitsis fails to teach displaying an interactive entity relationship graph with nodes representing queries and edges representing references among queries across multiple containers. The examiner disagrees. Simitsis teaches displaying an interactive entity relationship graph with nodes representing queries and edges representing references among queries across multiple containers (Figs. 6A-6C, paragraphs 17, 19, 27 and 53-54). Applicant’s specification does not mention edges representing references among queries across multiple containers. As such, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in a relationship graph showing connections between queries and parent-child relationships, the edges would represent references or relationships among queries.
Applicant also argues that the Office alleges that both Kumar and Simitsis teach determining the second set of one or more queries that reference the main query as a sub-query. The examiner disagrees. The examiner states that Simitsis teaches loading a plurality of containers, examining the plurality of containers, and for each query in the container, parsing each query. Although these steps are claimed as sub-sets of “determining a second set of one or more queries that reference that main query as a sub-query,” the examiner acknowledges that although Simitsis teaches steps leading to this determination, Simitsis does not teach the actual determination, which happens as the last step in the sequence of sub-steps. Therefore, the examiner is not citing the same set of subqueries in Simitsis as both a first set subqueries and second set of queries.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is found in both the references themselves and in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, as explained in the 103 rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights