DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 01/26/2026 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 09/24/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
2. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-20 are amended. No claims are added or canceled. As a result, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutlapalli (US 2011/0191312 A1) and in view of Kurani (US 2025/0147776 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 8 and 15, Gutlapalli discloses a system, comprising: a computing server (See para. [0040], and Figures 1 and 14, an enterprise data system) comprising a processor (See Figure 14, central processor 1414) and memory in communication with the processor (See Figure 14, system memory 1416), the memory configured to store code (See para. [0159] and para. [0160] and Figures 1 and 14, the central processor 1414 and system memory 1416 including random access memory (RAM) which stores operation system and application programs), wherein the instructions, when executed by the system, cause the system to perform steps (See para. [0160], the enterprise data system 1410 comprises application instructions) comprising:
receiving a query from a user device (See para. [0039], para. [0058], para. [0093], para. [0103] and Figures 3, 8, receiving an incoming search query from a client device 305);
identifying, a first interface of a plurality of interfaces on which to execute the query (See para. [0042], para. [0103], Figures 2 and 8, identifying search engine adapters which provide interfaces to execute the incoming search query, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are implemented as driver dynamic link libraries DLLs, such driver DLLs can be implemented by third parties, which is also known as a “Third party interface”), converting the query into a first query format suitable for use with the first interface (See para. [0103] and Figure 8, convert the incoming search query from a standard format into an engine-specific format and passes the search query to an engine specific adaptor 810, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are the third-party interfaces);
executing the query in the first query format on a first target system that uses the first interface such that the query is transmitted to the first target system in the first query format (See para. [0062], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figures 3, 4A and 8, executing the search query with the engine-specific format on a search engine that uses the search engine’s native format) and the first target system processes the query by retrieving or modifying data (See para. [0052], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and requests index data and subsequently retrieving native result data); and receiving the results of the executed query from the first target system; (See para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and retrieves native result data at an engine specific adaptor that is configured to receive these results); and a graphical user interface in communication with the computing server, the graphical user interface configured to display the received results (See para. [0104] and para. [0105] and Figures 8 and Figure 9A, the data obtained and provided by the search engine is converted from the native result format by the search engine adaptor and provided to the search services, the search service sends a notification to a user interface that the search results are available to the user interface once the conversion to a format acceptable).
Gutlapalli does not explicitly disclose analyzing the query to identify one or more of a structure of a query, a keyword in the query or a data source requirement of the query and selecting, using one or more predefined rules, heuristics, or algorithms and based on the one or more of the structures of the query, the keyword in the query or the data source requirement of the query.
Kurani discloses analyzing the query to identify one or more of a structure of a query, a keyword in the query or a data source requirement of the query (See para. [0087]-para. [0089] and Figures 7, 8, the system receives a query and identifies the query format is a voice query) and selecting, using one or more predefined rules, heuristics, or algorithms and based on the one or more of the structures of the query, the keyword in the query or the data source requirement of the query, a first interface of a plurality of interfaces uses a corresponding one of a plurality of query formats (See para. [0088], the system selects a voice recognition interface based on an audio format of the query), wherein each query format of the plurality of query formats describes a format for queries that are accepted by a corresponding interface for query execution; selecting from the plurality of query formats, a first query formats accepted by the first interface for query execution (See para. [0088], para. [0089] and Figures 7 and 8, selects the voice recognition interface based on the audio format of the first query and selects a second user interface when the query format is describing account performance, which is identified in the user’s query).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the Kurani teachings in the Gutlapalli system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to present more data-rich and interactive responses to user queries, and can select among multiple devices and platforms associated with a user to not only improve the efficacy of such communications but to improve security associated with such communications (See Kurani, para. [0024]). In addition, both of the references (Kurani and Gutlapalli) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as dynamically formatted graphical user interface. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Gutlapalli discloses selecting based on the structure of the keyword, a second interface on which to execute the query (See para. [0042], para. [0103], Figures 2 and 8, identifying search engine adapters which provide interfaces to execute the incoming search query, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are implemented as driver dynamic link libraries DLLs, such driver DLLs can be implemented by third parties, which is also known as a “Third party interface”); converting the query into a second format of the plurality of formats, suitable for use with the at least second interface from the plurality of interfaces on which to execute the query (See para. [0103] and Figure 8, convert the incoming search query from a standard format into an engine-specific format and passes the search query to an engine specific adaptor 810, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are the third-party interfaces); executing the query in the second format on the at least second target system that uses the at least second interface such that the query is transmitted to the at least second target system in the second format (See para. [0062], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figures 3, 4A and 8, executing the search query with the engine-specific format on a search engine that uses the search engine’s native format) and the at least second target system processes the query by retrieving or modifying requested data (See para. [0052], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and requesting index data and subsequently retrieving native result data); receiving the results of the executed query from the at least second target system (See para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and retrieves native result data at an engine specific adaptor that is configured to receive these results); and aggregating the results from the first target system and the at least second target system for display on the graphical user interface (See para. [0094], para. [0104] and para. [0105] and Figures 6, 9A-9C, the search server consolidates and converts the native result data from multiple engines into search results that are then provided by the search services to the user interface [step 610]).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Gutlapalli discloses enabling users to track, compare or revert changes to their queries over time (See para. [0131], para. [0138], allow users to track query sent, response received, elapsed time or so on).
Claims 3, 6, 7 10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutlapalli (US 2011/0191312 A1) and in view of Kurani (US 2025/0147776 A1) and further in view of Kondiles (US 2023/0367773 A1).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Gutlapalli discloses storing a previously executed query or its results to reduce a processing load on target systems and improve response times for frequently executed queries.
Kondiles discloses storing a previously executed query or its results to reduce a processing load on target systems and improve response times for frequently executed queries (See para. [0006], para. [0159] and para. [0164] and para. [0308], aggregating results from previous execution with one or more corresponding operators of a given query to improve response rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the Kondiles teachings in the Gutlapalli system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to store a previously executed query or its results to reduce a processing load on target systems and improve response times for executed queries (See Kondiles, para. [0006]). In addition, all of the references (Kurani, Kondiles and Gutlapalli) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as loading query result sets for query. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Gutlapalli does not explicitly disclose parsing the query by splitting the query into tokens, relational operators, values, or logical operators; and organizing the parsed query into a logical tree, wherein the query is converted using the logical tree.
Kondiles discloses parsing the query by splitting the query into tokens, relational operators, values, or logical operators; and organizing the parsed query into a logical tree, wherein the query is converted using the logical tree (See para. [0096], converts a query using syntax tree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the Kondiles teachings in the Gutlapalli system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to organize the parsed query into a logical tree in order to improve the response time for complete of the computing functions (See Kondiles, para. [0007]). In addition, all of the references (Kurani, Kondiles and Gutlapalli) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as query execution in disparate databases. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 7 and 14, Gutlapalli discloses identifying a second interface on which to execute the query (See para. [0042], para. [0103], Figures 2 and 8, identifying search engine adapters which provide interfaces to execute the incoming search query, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are implemented as driver dynamic link libraries DLLs, such driver DLLs can be implemented by third parties, which is also known as a “Third party interface”); […] convert the query into a second format suitable for use with the second interface (See para. [0103] and Figure 8, convert the incoming search query from a standard format into an engine-specific format and passes the search query to an engine specific adaptor 810, note in para. [0044], the search adapters 235 are the third-party interfaces); executing the query in the second format on the second target system that uses the second interface such that the query is transmitted to the second target system in the second format (See para. [0062], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figures 3, 4A and 8, executing the search query with the engine-specific format on a search engine that uses the search engine’s native format) and the second target system processes the query by retrieving or modifying requested data See para. [0052], para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and requesting index data and subsequently retrieving native result data); receiving the results of the executed query from the second target system (See para. [0103], para. [0104] and Figure 4, the search engine processes the search query and retrieves native result data at an engine specific adaptor that is configured to receive these results); and aggregating the results from the first target system and the second target system for display on the graphical user interface (See para. [0094], para. [0104] and para. [0105] and Figures 6, 9A-9C, the search server consolidates and converts the native result data from multiple engines into search results that are then provided by the search services to the user interface [step 610]).
Gutlapalli does not explicitly disclose using the logical tree structure to convert the query into a second format.
Kondiles discloses using the logical tree structure to convert the query into a second format (See para. [0096], converts a query using syntax tree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the Kondiles teachings in the Gutlapalli system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to organize the parsed query into a logical tree in order to improve the response time for complete of the computing functions (See Kondiles, para. [0007]). In addition, all of the references (Kurani, Kondiles and Gutlapalli) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as query execution in disparate databases. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutlapalli (US 2011/0191312 A1) and in view of Kurani (US 2025/0147776 A1) and further in view of Kammath (US 2018/0357444 A1).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, Gutlapalli discloses selecting a first interface is based on level of access granted to the user (See para. [0060], “Search services module 330 is configured, in part, through the use of a search index. By referencing the search index, the search services can provide the user interface with information identified by values provided for searching using the searchable fields available to the user. A search index can be built by providing a mapping between the searchable fields in the search index and the related fields found within the searchable objects of interest. Embodiments of the present invention provide such a mapping through the use of a modifiable field mapping file. The field mapping file provides information necessary to make a linkage between fields of the search index and fields of a variety of searchable objects. Further, a user can be provided with the ability to modify the field mappings file. If such a modification is performed, the searchable index can be modified at runtime to provide access to or deny access to fields affected by such a modification of the field mappings file”) but does not explicitly determining a level of access granted to the user; and executing the query based on the level of access granted to the user to ensure that the query respects security and permission boundaries granted to the user.
Kammath discloses determining a level of access granted to the user; and executing the query based on the level of access granted to the user to ensure that the query respects security and permission boundaries granted to the user (See para. [0065] and Figure 4, the central authorization metadata is a table storing the access rights granted for respective users in fine-grained access control (table level, column level, row level) manner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the Kammath teachings in the Gutlapalli system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine a level of access granted to the user; and execute the query based on the level of access granted to the user to allow fine-gained access control provide all users with different level of access which are needed for databases in big data systems (See Kammath, para. [0007]). In addition, all of the references (Kurani, Kondiles and Kammath) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as query execution in disparate databases. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
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 YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164