DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 18/583394, filed on 2/21/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 2025/0013635, hereinafter “Shah.”
Regarding claim 1, Shah anticipates “An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 15 & associated text) the at least one processing device being configured:
to receive natural language input from one or more user devices relating at least in part to data of one or more databases; (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 8 sec. 802)
to apply the natural language input to an artificial intelligence (AI) system; (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 8 sec. 804)
to generate in the AI system database code for the one or more databases based at least in part on the natural language input; (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 8 sec. 806, 814, 822) and
to execute the generated database code against at least a portion of the one or more databases.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 8 sec. 820, 822; para. 93).
Regarding claim 2, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein executing the generated database code comprises providing the generated database code to a database management system associated with the one or more databases for execution therein.” (see, e.g., Shah, para. 93; “The database query 820 may be submitted to the server system 102, processed by the server system 102, and a result of the query returned to the source of the natural language statement 802, such as the user computing device 116.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein receiving natural language input from one or more user devices comprises receiving the natural language input in association with at least one database query, and wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to decompose the at least one database query into a sequence of processing steps formulated in natural language using one or more corresponding text templates.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 11 & associated text; para. 104).
Regarding claim 4, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 3 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to generate one or more prompts for application to the AI system at least in part by interleaving at least a portion of the sequence of processing steps with one or more user-provided instructions of the natural language input, wherein at least one of the one or more prompts further comprises at least one of (i) information characterizing one or more database schema, (ii) information characterizing one or more physical data properties, (iii) one or more generic instructions regarding corresponding relational operators, and (iv) one or more code samples.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 13 & associated text; para. 114-119).
Regarding claim 5, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 4 wherein applying the natural language input to the AI system comprises applying the one or more prompts to the AI system for generation of the database code therefrom.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 13 & associated text; para. 118-119).
Regarding claim 6, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the AI system is configured in accordance with a Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) model.” (see, e.g., Shah, para. 64).
Regarding claim 7, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein receiving natural language input from one or more user devices comprises receiving at least one of one or more general instructions in natural language and one or more per-step instructions in natural language via at least one user interface of the at least one processing device.” (see, e.g., Shah, para. 90, 94, 98).
Regarding claim 11, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to implement an automated debugging system for debugging at least portions of the database code.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 12 & associated text; para. 106; “a method 1200 for repairing SQL statements generated using an LLM.”; fig. 9 sec. 906, para. 99; “Repair Stage”).
Regarding claim 12, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 11 wherein the automated debugging system is configured to apply a probabilistic model to identify one or more portions of the database code that have at least a threshold likelihood of being incorrect and to control regeneration of the one or more identified portions.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 9 & associated text; para. 99, 101, 107).
Regarding claim 13, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 11 wherein the automated debugging system is configured to schedule execution of one or more test cases in conjunction with identifying one or more portions of the database code that have at least a threshold likelihood of being incorrect.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 9 & associated text; para. 100).
Regarding claim 14, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to utilize at least a portion of the generated database code as a code sample for use in generation of additional database code by the AI system.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 9 & associated text; para. 97-98, 101, 107).
Regarding claim 15, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured, for each of one or more database queries: to obtain a first query result for the database query utilizing a reference database management system; to obtain a second query result for the database query utilizing a database management system comprising the generated database code; to compare the first and second query results; and to determine correctness of the generated database code based at least in part on the comparison.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 9 & associated text; para. 98-101).
Regarding claim 16, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to combine the database code generated by the AI system with additional database code.” (see, e.g., Shah, fig. 9 & associated text; para. 101, 107).
Regarding claims 17-20, the instant claims are equivalents of claims 1 and 3-5, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 17 and 19, and the rejections of claims 3-5 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 18 and 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah.
Regarding claim 8, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 7” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein a given one of the general instructions comprises an instruction specifying at least one particular library to be utilized in processing at least one database query.” Stated more simply, Shah does not appear to disclose libraries to be used in processing database queries. However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, libraries used in processing database queries were known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the noticed library use with the database query generation of Shah, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to verify proper execution of queries which reference libraries. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Shah.
Regarding claim 9, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 7” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein a given one of the per-step instructions comprises an instruction specifying customized logging output.” In other words, Shah does not disclose the use of customized logging output. However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, customized logging output was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the noticed customized logging output with the database query generation of Shah, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability refine or limit the log output of a testing operation or other program execution. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Shah.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah and USPGPUB 2024/0086156, hereinafter “Langton.”
Regarding claim 10, Shah anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to receive termination condition information from the one or more user devices, the termination condition information specifying one or more termination criteria associated with automated verification operations performed on generated database code by the AI system, and wherein generating the database code comprises generating the database code in a manner that complies with the one or more termination criteria specified in the received termination condition information.”
However, Langton discloses (at figs. 5-6 & associated text) generating database code with an AI system wherein termination conditions and criteria are specified which govern the generation of database code. Langton and Shah are directed toward database code generation and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the termination conditions and criteria of Langton with the database code generation of Shah, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to limit the execution duration of AI model training. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Shah and Langton.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. 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, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191