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
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 12/29/25.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 – 11, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller, US 2021/0149898 A1.
Regarding claim 1, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Mueller discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising (e.g. Mueller, claim 1; par. 309, 310):
receiving, by a processor, a request for a data access file, the request indicating a stored procedure for accessing a database (e.g. Mueller, par. 4, 28, 23, 32, 33, 155, 156; fig. 1:117 – a data access generation request is received for generating a “data access mode” (i.e. “data access file”), the request comprising indications of a search model, i.e. “stored procedure”, to be included within the generated data access mode)
invoking, by the processor, the stored procedure to retrieve a data record stored in the database and determine inputs (e.g. Mueller, fig. 2:201, 211) required by the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 28, 29, 31, 33, 42, 151, 155 – herein the search model is invoked, wherein the invoked search model identifies inputs, e.g. fig. 2:201, 211, so as to retrieve specific data within a dataset, i.e. database, searched for by a user), the stored procedure comprising executable database operation instructions for accessing the data record in the database using the inputs required by the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 28, 31, 151, 152, 155 – e.g. JSON, XML, or similar, data structure of executable markup language and search definitions for querying a database and retrieving data records therefrom);
generating, by the processor, the data access file based on the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 4, 93; fig. 3:312, 314, 316 – the data access mode is based on the generated search definitions and model), the data record retrieved by invoking the stored procedure, and the inputs required by the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 4, 28, 31, 151, 153, 155; fig. 2:201, 211 – the data access mode is further based on the relational and linear data inputs, comprising the data records, retrieved from within the relational database using executed or invoked queries within the data access mode), the data access file including a mapping between a first property in an application associated with the database and a second property of the data record in the database (e.g. Mueller, fig. 2:201,204a and fig. 2:211:204b; par. 50, 151-154 – mapping between linear data, or properties such as identifiers or locations of linear data, of the application and the relational data records of the database), and the data access file further including instructions for invoking the stored procedure using the inputs required by the stored procedure to query the database for the data record (e.g. Mueller, par. 4, 151-158 – the access mode comprises invokable instructions upon linear and relational data inputs so as to conduct the search model);
and in response to receiving a first request for the data record in the database (e.g. Mueller, par. 23, 38, 93 – users access the access mode through an API request made via a user interface), translating, by the processor, the first request for the data record into a second request for the data record according to the mapping in the data access file, wherein the second request uses the instructions for invoking the stored procedure in the data access file to invoke the stored procedure to access the data record in the database (e.g. Mueller, par. 3, 4, 46, 47, 93 – the access mode serves to translate the user’s application based search request, according to the search definitions of the access mode, into a query for accessing the underlying relational database).
Regarding claim 6, Mueller discloses:
wherein the stored procedure is configured to return data from one or more tables of the database based on one or more input parameters (e.g. Mueller, par. 3, 43, 56, 57, 105, 106).
Regarding claim 7, Mueller discloses:
wherein the first request comprises an application programming interface (API) call (e.g. Mueller, par. 23, 28).
Regarding claim 8, Mueller discloses:
wherein the second request uses a calling code of the data access file to call the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 38, 74, 84, 85, 93).
Regarding claim 9, Mueller discloses:
wherein the first request comprises a database operation and an identifier of the database (e.g. Mueller, par. 29, 93; fig. 1:107).
Regarding claim 10, Mueller discloses:
wherein the data access file comprises a mapping between the database operation and the stored procedure (e.g. Mueller, par. 29, 93, 155).
Regarding claims 11 and 16 – 20, they are system claims essentially corresponding to the method claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons. Furthermore because, Mueller discloses: A system comprising: a database comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium … a server comprising a processor … (e.g. Mueller, fig. 5a-5c; fig. 1:107; par. 26, 293, 306).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 2 – 5 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller, US 2021/0149898 A1 in view of Feinberg, US 2006/0155720 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Mueller does not appear to explicitly disclose updating the generated data access layer or mode. However, Feinberg teaches that data access layers should be updated (e.g. Feinberg, par. 7), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the data access layer updating teachings of Feinberg within the system of Mueller because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teaching that it is necessary to update the generated data access layer because application requirements often change (e.g. Feinberg, par. 43).
Thus, the combination enables:
in response to an update to the stored procedure (e.g. Feinberg, par. 42, 43), retrieving, by the processor, a second data record from the database based on the updated stored procedure; generating, by the processor, an updated data access file based on the updated stored procedure and the second data record; and translating, by the processor, a third request for the data record in the database into a fourth request for the data record in the database using the updated data access file, wherein the fourth request uses the updated stored procedure to access the second data record in the database (e.g. Feinberg, par. 43; Mueller, par. 3, 4, 23, 38, 46, 47, 93, 94). Herein, the data access layer is regenerated, using the same process as taught above, based upon the updated or new database records).
Regarding claim 3, Mueller discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the processor, an indication of the update to the stored procedure from the database (e.g. Feinberg, par. 42, 43).
Regarding claim 4, Mueller discloses:
further comprising periodically polling, by the processor, the database for the update to the stored procedure (e.g. Feinberg, par. 42, 43).
Regarding claim 5, Mueller discloses:
wherein the update to the stored procedure is made by an administrator computer (e.g. Feinberg, par. 42, 43).
Regarding claims 12 – 15, they are system claims essentially corresponding to the method claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… However, Mueller merely provides for accessing relational data to generate a search model. The search model 118 of Mueller is part of its data access mode 117. Mueller does not suggest invoking its search model to retrieve data to generate its data access mode. Mueller therefore fails to suggest invoking a stored procedure to retrieve a data record and determine inputs and generating a data access file based on the stored procedure.
…
(Remarks, pg. 7)
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Mueller teaches that a generated data access mode 210 (i.e. “data access file”) is based on a generated search model 221, i.e. “stored procedure” (e.g. Mueller, fig. 2:210, 221).
However, the claims do not recite or require that the “stored procedure” (i.e. search model 221) be invoked so as to retrieve data to generate the “data access file” (i.e. data access mode 210).
Thus, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the argued features, essentially that Meuller fails to teach invoking the “stored procedure” to retrieve data to generate the “data access file”, are not recited within the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “…invoking its search model to retrieve data to generate its data access mode…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495