DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02
March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 02 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicants may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
Applicant argues:
First, the Final Office Action has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness because the Final Office Action fails to identify where in any of the cited references the following limitation of Claims 1 and 11 are met (disclosed or suggested): "custom-written function comprising one of... (ii) allowing raw data in a file, made up of one or more columns, to be encrypted before storage, and only decrypted at the moment the file is retrieved from storage and checked to see whether the raw data therein satisfy the query." Therefore, the rejection is improper and must be withdrawn. In addition, should the Examiner add yet another new reference in the next paper purportedly disclosing this aspect, such paper should not, and cannot, be made final.
In response, the Examiner submits:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “… wherein the execution script includes an arbitrary user-provided code statement defining a custom-written function comprising one of
(i) performing conversion of the data using a lookup table to allow for aggregation on the first pass through the data or
(ii) allowing raw data in a file, made up of one or more columns, to be encrypted before storage, and only decrypted at the moment the file is retrieved from storage and checked to see whether the raw data therein satisfy the query”.
The instant claims only require one of step (i) or step (ii). Therefore, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius need not teach or suggest step (ii) as long as they teach step (i) above.
Applicant further argues:
Bolsius discloses a system in which, if a user queries for information that is associated with an original language (e.g., English) different than the one the user uses (e.g., German), a "base table" containing the information in its original language (English) is joined with a "lookup table" containing a translation of the information (to German) in order to provide the translated information, from the lookup table, to the user as an output of the query (Bolsius at [0009], [0048]).
Conversely, Claims 1 and 11 require a custom-written function to perform a "conversion of the data." Meaning the original data itself is modified and changed prior to providing the data as an output to a query. In Bolsius, no data in the base table is modified or changed; instead only new information (translated information) is additionally added through joining of tables, and the new information from the lookup table is presented as the output. Applicant's pending claims explicitly recite that the data is converted (to another form or value).
Thus, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform direct conversion of data through a custom-written function, based upon the teachings of Bolsius' joining of a base table and a lookup table to provide translated information.
In response, the Examiner submits:
Bolsius does disclose custom-written function comprising one of (i) performing conversion of the data using a lookup table to allow for aggregation on the first pass through the data (Bolsius: at least ¶0009; “… performing a join operation of the base table with the lookup table to yield a translated value requested by the query”; ¶0048; “physical SQL statement 412 can perform a join operation of the base table with the lookup table to obtain the translation”).
Bolsius in addition teaches “perform a translation by invoking a lookup function” and “obtain the translation of a particular piece of data. For example, the lookup function includes a parameter specifying the value column of the lookup table that will contain the translation” (Bolsius: at least ¶¶0019-0020).
Bolsius’ translation using a lookup table reads on the recited “conversion of the data using a lookup table”.
The instant claims only require “conversion of the data”; they but do not require conversion of data where “the original data itself is modified and changed”.
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.
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 and 11 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”).
As to Claim 1, Debo teaches a system for dynamically generating scripts to be executed during a query of a data store (Debo: at least Col. 6 Lines 30-34; “SQL query scripts are generated as needed, or “on the fly” by database query devices 102 and/or database administrator devices 104, these SQL scripts are typically referred to as “ad-hoc” SQL scripts”), comprising: a server comprising one or more processors (Debo: at least Col. 4 Lines 53-56; “computing environment 100 may include one or more database query devices 102, one or more database administrator devices 104, one or more client devices 105”); and non-transitory memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the server, cause the one or more processors to: receive a query comprising files to be searched, key values to search on (Debo: at least Col. 17 Lines 6-12 further disclose “a user may enter and/or edit script text using a suitable input device (e.g., a keyboard) as shown in FIG. 2B. Additionally or alternatively, a user may utilize the SQL parameters in portion 254. In other words, a user may select the desired search parameters from portion 254 instead of manually typing these into portion 252”; note: 252 of Fig. 2B shows the receiving of a SQL SELECT query with WHERE clause), and one or both of a filter selecting a subset of the files to be searched and an aggregation of data from all of the files or from all of the files that are filtered (Debo: at least Col. 5 Lines 18-20 & 34-35 & 52-63; “central data governance server 108 may be configured to access (execute scripts on, query, alter data stored on, etc.) each of the data storage devices 106.1-106.N” and “data storage devices 106, each storing any suitable number of data collections 110” and “data storage devices 106.1-106.N and their respective collections of data 110.1-110.N may include data stored in any suitable data type of structure, format, protocol, language, etc. For example, the collections of data 110.1-110.N may include structured data, semi-structured data, or unstructured data stored in relational databases, object-relational databases, hierarchical databases, document-oriented databases, etc. Central data access server 108 may query, scan, or otherwise interact with the collections of data 110.1-110.N via languages, protocols, scripts, etc., as defined according to any suitable type and number of database servers, applications, and/or systems”; Col. 11 Lines 5-9 & 46-49 & 55-56 also disclose “allow only a portion of the data requested via the SQL query script received via network interface 132 to be retrieved from data storage devices 106.1-106.N” and “SQL scripts may include a number of search parameters to use to retrieve data from data storage devices 106.1-106.N, which act as filters when applied to the data, returning only results that match the SQL script parameters” and “any other suitable parameter that may be used to search data stored in data storage devices 106.1-106.N”), wherein the query also comprises an execution script comprising dynamic scripting logic (Debo: at least Col. 6 Lines 30-34; “SQL query scripts are generated as needed, or “on the fly” by database query devices 102 and/or database administrator devices 104, these SQL scripts are typically referred to as “ad-hoc” SQL scripts”; Col. 16 Lines 50-51 & 62-64 further disclose “graphical interface used to edit and send an SQL script in accordance with one aspect of the disclosure” and “portion 252 may include any suitable graphic, information, label, prompt, etc., to allow a user to enter and/or edit SQL query scripts”; Col. 17 Lines 9-13 further disclose “a user may utilize the SQL parameters in portion 254. In other words, a user may select the desired search parameters from portion 254 instead of manually typing these into portion 252. In an aspect, portion 254 acts as a graphical programming interface, allowing a user to select the desired SQL script parameters”), wherein the execution script includes an arbitrary user-provided code statement defining a custom-written function (Debo: at least Col. 16 Lines 63-67; “allow a user to enter and/or edit SQL query scripts. Portion 254 may include any suitable graphic, information, label, prompt, etc., to indicate one or more parameters that may be used to create the SQL script entered in portion 252”; Col. 17 Lines 6-12 further discloses “a user may enter and/or edit script text using a suitable input device (e.g., a keyboard) as shown in FIG. 2B. Additionally or alternatively, a user may utilize the SQL parameters in portion 254. In other words, a user may select the desired search parameters from portion 254 instead of manually typing these into portion 252”), wherein the custom-written function is written in one of a scripting language or a programming language (Debo: at least Col. 6 Lines 28-34; “SQL query scripts are generated as needed, or “on the fly” by database query devices 102 and/or database administrator devices 104, these SQL scripts are typically referred to as “ad-hoc” SQL scripts” and “SQL query script” and “a script conforming to any suitable computer programming language, such as Structure Query Language (SQL) scripts for example”), which, when the query is run at runtime, will execute the custom-written function to take an action specified by the user-provided code statement for each file that potentially matches the query (Debo: at least Col. 16 Lines 63-67; “allow a user to enter and/or edit SQL query scripts. Portion 254 may include any suitable graphic, information, label, prompt, etc., to indicate one or more parameters that may be used to create the SQL script entered in portion 252”; Col. 17 Lines 6-12 further discloses “a user may enter and/or edit script text using a suitable input device (e.g., a keyboard) as shown in FIG. 2B. Additionally or alternatively, a user may utilize the SQL parameters in portion 254. In other words, a user may select the desired search parameters from portion 254 instead of manually typing these into portion 252”; Col. 4 Line 65 – Col. 5 Line 3 & Col. 11 Lines 46-50 further disclose “… taking certain actions upon the collections of data 110.1-110.N in accordance with the execution of a received SQL script. The actions may include, for example, performing data queries and/or performing alterations on the collections of data 110.1-110.N” and “SQL scripts may include a number of search parameters to use to retrieve data from data storage devices 106.1-106.N, which act as filters when applied to the data, returning only results that match the SQL script parameters”; note: 252 of Fig. 2B shows example of an arbitrary select statement for file(s) that potentially match SQL; user-provided code via editing; SQL performs at least one function);
dynamically generate a script (Debo: at least Col. 6 Lines 30-34; “SQL query scripts are generated as needed, or “on the fly” by database query devices 102 and/or database administrator devices 104, these SQL scripts are typically referred to as “ad-hoc” SQL scripts”) based on contents of the query (Debo: at least Col. 16 Lines 54-56 & 62-67, Col. 17 Lines 1-2; “screenshot 250 may be displayed to a user upon a user selecting a query from portion 204 of screenshot 200” and “to allow a user to enter and/or edit SQL query scripts. Portion 254 may include any suitable graphic, information, label, prompt, etc., to indicate one or more parameters that may be used to create the SQL script entered in portion 252. Portion 256 may include any suitable graphic, information, label, prompt, etc., to allow a user to build and/or update SQL script queries”; Col. 17 Lines 6-12 further disclose “a user may enter and/or edit script text using a suitable input device (e.g., a keyboard) as shown in FIG. 2B. Additionally or alternatively, a user may utilize the SQL parameters in portion 254. In other words, a user may select the desired search parameters from portion 254 instead of manually typing these into portion 252”), optimizing the script from a template to include only features necessary to satisfy the query (Debo: at least Col. 11 Lines 40-45; “optimization of the SQL script may be based upon various factors that may be customized by a user (e.g., a database administrator) in accordance with the particular needs or characteristics of a company hosting the data stored in data storage devices 1016.1-106.N”); and
distribute the generated script horizontally to a plurality of computing devices that will execute the query (Debo: at least Col. 8 Lines 20-21 and Col. 17 Lines 37-38; “central data governance server 108 may include a host processor 114” and “upon the SQL script being built, the SQL query script may be sent to central data access server 108”; Col. 8 Lines 35-38 & 41-45 further disclose “host processor 114 may be configured to receive ad-hoc SQL scripts via network interface 132 that were sent from another device, such as database query devices 102” and “for example, if an SQL script is received via network interface 132 corresponding to a database query, then host processor 114 may execute the query SQL script to retrieve data in accordance with the SQL query script parameters”; Col. 12 Lines 58-62 also disclose “when an SQL script is received and/or executed, a target data storage device 106.1-106.N to be searched when host processor 114 executes the SQL script, a number of data storage devices 106.1-106.N to be searched, etc.”; Col. 13 Lines 50-52 also disclose “processor 114 may cause network interface 132 to send saved SQL scripts to database query devices 102”; Col. 15 Lines 28-32 explains that “processors 114” and “central data access server 108 may be distributed among a plurality of servers in an arrangement known as “cloud computing,” and “the data stored in data storage devices 106.1-106.N and the configuration database 130 may be distributed among a plurality of data storage devices”) by calling the generated script on each of the files to be searched (Debo: at least Col. 4 Line 65 – Col. 5 Line 3, Col. 5 Lines 59-61; “… taking certain actions upon the collections of data 110.1-110.N in accordance with the execution of a received SQL script. The actions may include, for example, performing data queries and/or performing alterations on the collections of data 110.1-110.N” and “Central data access server 108 may query, scan, or otherwise interact with the collections of data 110.1-110.N via languages, protocols, scripts, etc.”; Col. 8 Lines 39-45; “Host processor 114 may process the received ad-hoc SQL script and perform a corresponding action upon its execution. For example, if an SQL script is received via network interface 132 corresponding to a database query, then host processor 114 may execute the query SQL script to retrieve data in accordance with the SQL query script parameters”; Col. 12 Lines 58-62 also disclose “when an SQL script is received and/or executed, a target data storage device 106.1-106.N to be searched when host processor 114 executes the SQL script, a number of data storage devices 106.1-106.N to be searched, etc.”; Col. 6 Lines 42-4; further disclose “once central data access server 108 receives the SQL query script from database administrator devices 104, central data access server 108 in turn may retrieve data stored in one or more of data storage devices 106.1-106.N”).
Debo does not explicitly disclose, but Echeverria discloses said query comprising a time window of files to be searched (Echeverria: at least Col. 16 Lines 18-20 & 23-28; “each bucket can include raw machine data associated with a time stamp and additional information about the data or bucket” and “bucket data and information about the bucket data is stored in one or more files” and “… stored in respective files in or associated with a bucket. In certain cases, the group of files can be associated together to form the bucket”; Col. 39 Lines 23-26 & 30-32 further disclose “search manager 514 that has parsed a query to identify the following filter criteria that is used to identify the data to be processed: time range: past hour, partition: sales, tenant: ABC, Inc., keyword: Error” and “identify buckets associated with the sales partition and the tenant ABC, Inc. and that include data from the past hour”; Col. 50 Lines 55-60 also disclose “each bucket can include one or more files … raw machine data files” and “each bucket can store events including raw machine data associated with a timestamp”; Col. 52 Line 67 – Col. 53 Line 5 further disclose “provide the data store catalog 220 with at least a portion of the query or one or more filter criteria associated with the query. In response, the data store catalog 220 can provide the query system 214 with an identification of buckets that store data that satisfies at least a portion of the query”; Col. 80 Lines 3-10 further disclose “in response to the request from the search head 504, the data store catalog 220 can be used to identify and return identifiers of buckets in common storage 216 and/or location information of data in common storage 216 that satisfy at least a portion of the query or at least some filter criteria (e.g., buckets associated with an identified tenant or partition or that satisfy an identified time range, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Echeverria’s feature of a query comprising a time window of files to be searched (Echeverria: at least Col. 16 Lines 18-20 & 23-28) with Debo’s system.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance “real-time data exploration through elimination of duplicate query fragments in complex database queries” and “remove duplicate subqueries, and thereby avoids executing redundant query operations” (Echeverria: at least Col. 16 Lines 18-20 & 23-28).
Debo and Echeverria do not disclose, but Bolsius discloses said custom-written function comprising one of (i) performing conversion of the data using a lookup table to allow for aggregation on the first pass through the data (Bolsius: at least ¶0009; “… performing a join operation of the base table with the lookup table to yield a translated value requested by the query”; ¶0048; “physical SQL statement 412 can perform a join operation of the base table with the lookup table to obtain the translation”) or (ii) allowing raw data in a file, made up of one or more columns, to be encrypted before storage, and only decrypted at the moment the file is retrieved from storage and checked to see whether the raw data therein satisfy the query.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bolsius’ feature of said custom-written function comprising one of (i) performing conversion of the data using a lookup table to allow for aggregation on the first pass through the data (Bolsius: at least ¶¶0009, 0048) or (ii) allowing raw data in a file, made up of one or more columns, to be encrypted before storage, and only decrypted at the moment the file is retrieved from storage and checked to see whether the raw data therein satisfy the query with the system disclosed by Debo and Echeverria.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide “multilingual double column support” for Business Intelligence server (Bolsius: at least ¶¶0004, 0008).
Claim 11 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2019/0220539 by Taylor et al. (“Taylor”).
As to Claim 2, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Taylor discloses wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file modifies a value before determining whether the modified value matches a criterion in the query (Taylor: at least ¶¶0053-0054, Fig. 4; “the original text (e.g., “1234”) is edited in the source (e.g.; “4321”)” and “application service 401 retrieves the latest text from the location”; note: retrieval of latest text is a query with latest text as criterion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taylor’s feature of wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file modifies a value before determining whether the modified value matches a criterion in the query (Taylor: at least ¶¶0053-0054, Fig. 4) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for generate an alert that content has been updated and is available (Taylor: at least ¶0055).
Claim 12 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2002/0065814 by Okamoto et al. (“Okamoto”).
As to Claim 3, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Okamoto discloses wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file modifies a value in a file that is already determined to match the query, in order to format data for output (Okamoto: at least ¶¶0149, 0234; “the query term set by the client 2701 is acquired and used for the search process, the matching strings position is detected, and highlight position information 2709 is produced. The highlight tag is embedded at the matching strings position of the HTML document matched with the query term, and displayed on the web browser 2703 of the client 2701” and “highlighted display is realized for each element”; ¶0309 further discloses “highlight tag is inserted before and after (3501, 3502) of "feature" matched in search” where “This Month’s Feature” of document is modified in order to format data for output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Okamoto’s feature of wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file modifies a value in a file that is already determined to match the query, in order to format data for output (Okamoto: at least ¶¶0149, 0234, 0309) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “display in highlight the entire element including a matching query term or to display in highlight the entire area including two query terms satisfying the proximity condition of the occurrence position” and/or “execute other similar processes, hierarchical highlight information is added for highlighted display according to different high-light display formats" (Okamoto: at least ¶0033).
Claim 13 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US Patent 11,966,392 by Utkarsh et al. (“Utkarsh”).
As to Claim 4, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Utkarsh discloses wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file creates an additional column based on one or more values in the file for purposes of aggregating results of the query by the additional column (Utkarsh: at least Col. 5 Lines 49-51; “identifies the second worksheet 310 (namely, “D_CUSTOMER”) as the data set or worksheet to request data from”; Col. 6 Lines 4-9 & 28-31 further disclose “request 302 may also include a mechanism for a user to include a specification 314 of a data column, where the user may specify within the GUI which column of the second worksheet to request data from when inserting the new column into the first worksheet” and “receiving the query result from the query manager 124, may subsequently add the new column to the first worksheet for presentation to the user”; Col. 7 Lines 26-30 & 33-35 further disclose “receiving 404 the query result 405 from the database 204 may be carried out in response to the database query 403 being sent to the database and the database returning the query result to the query manager 124 over the wide area network 140” and “in response to receiving the query result comprising the requested data set, add the new column to the first worksheet for presentation to a user”; 404 of Fig. 4 also discloses “a query result including the new column to be added to the first worksheet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Utkarsh’s feature of wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file creates an additional column based on one or more values in the file for purposes of aggregating results of the query by the additional column (Utkarsh: at least Col. 5 Lines 49-51, Col. 6 Lines 4-9 & 28-31, Col. 7 Lines 26-30 & 33-35, Fig. 4) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve “the operation of a computing system by allowing complex database query generation to be offloaded to a query manager, increasing computing system efficiency and usability” (Utkarsh: at least Col. 9 Lines 60-67; “readers will recognize that the benefits of adding a column into a worksheet according to embodiments of the present disclosure include: Improving the operation of a computing system by allowing complex database query generation to be offloaded to a query manager, increasing computing system efficiency and usability”).
Claim 14 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2022/0272121 by Alberstein et al. (“Alberstein”).
As to Claim 5, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Alberstein discloses wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file is approved for execution based on every language feature or function present in the code being found on a whitelist of approved language features (Alberstein: at least ¶0017; “each text statement may be associated with one or more lists of text elements such as a whitelist of text elements that are always to be allowed as is (“allowed elements”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Alberstein’s feature of wherein the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file is approved for execution based on every language feature or function present in the code being found on a whitelist of approved language features (Alberstein: at least ¶0017) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to secure against “an injection attack” that is “any attempt to infiltrate or compromise the data structure by injecting data into a text statement that implements one or more instructions configured to direct a processor to perform an operation with respect to the data structure” (Alberstein: at least ¶0014)
Claim 15 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 6, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Alberstein discloses wherein, if the arbitrary user-provided code statement to be executed for each file contains a language feature or function that is found on a blacklist of prohibited language features (Alberstein: at least ¶0017; “blacklist of text elements that are always to be prohibited (“prohibited elements”)”), a query attempt will fail (Alberstein: at least ¶0073; “determine that the set of text elements of text statement 508-3 includes the prohibited element that is indicated on blacklist 502-2. As a result, based on the determining that the set of text elements includes the prohibited element indicated on blacklist 502-2, system 100 may restrict text statement 508-3 from being provided to the processor of data structure interface 304 for performing operations directed by text statement 508-3”) and a requester of the query will be notified (Alberstein: at least ¶0039; “notifications with the statements as appropriate such that client systems may decide how to handle the statements (e.g., throw an exception, log an error and quietly exit, etc.)”) and permitted to modify the query (Alberstein: at least ¶0019; “convert them from potentially malicious instructions into harmless identifiers (which, if malicious, would result in an error when executed rather than performing the malicious functionality)”).
Claim 16 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 7, Debo, Echeverria, Bolsius and Alberstein teach the system of claim 6, wherein the blacklist of prohibited language features includes any feature that allows change in non-volatile memory to persist after the query is executed (Alberstein: at least ¶0014; “types of attacks such as buffer overflow attacks (e.g., a stack overflow attacks) and/or other types of attacks that may similarly be attempted to compromise program code in memory or another such data structure”).
Claim 17 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 8, Debo, Echeverria, Bolsius and Alberstein teach the system of claim 6, wherein the blacklist of prohibited language features includes any function that directly interfaces with an operating system or file system of a computing device executing the code (Alberstein: at least ¶0014; “types of attacks such as buffer overflow attacks (e.g., a stack overflow attacks) and/or other types of attacks that may similarly be attempted to compromise program code in memory or another such data structure”).
Claim 18 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2017/0357693 by Kumar et al. (“Kumar”).
As to Claim 9, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Kumar discloses wherein the query is expressed in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format (Kumar: at least ¶0048; “database engine then converts the SQL query result into a JSON query result object 129, for transport back to the application layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kumar’s feature of wherein the query is expressed in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format (Kumar: at least ¶0048) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to produce queries that are compatible with various database implementations (Kumar: at least ¶0086; “one benefit of using a JSON-based query language, is that the query is agnostic of the specific database implementation. Thus while FIG. 6 happens to show a Sybase database, the JSON Query also works with other databases, for example the HANA in-memory database also available from SAP SE”).
Claim 19 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,169,997 by Debo et al. (“Debo”) in view of US Patent 10,761,813 by Echeverria et al. (“Echeverria”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0295837 by Bolsius et al. (“Bolsius”), and further in view of US Patent 10,599,635 by Gunn et al. (“Gunn”).
As to Claim 10, Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius teach the system of claim 1.
Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius do not disclose, but Gunn discloses wherein the generated script (Gunn: at least Col. 8 Lines 54-56 & Col. 9 Lines 43-45; “Script data can be automatically generated and/or validated to ensure that the script data will properly execute and that the necessary data is created and/or processed” and “script data can include one or more SQL queries that can be processed by a database system to obtain data stored”) is in the Python scripting language (Gunn: at least Col. 10 Lines 1-3 & 27-29 and Col. 11 Lines 27-28; “Pylint tool can be used to validate script data formatted in the Python language” and “generate documentation for script data written in the Python language”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gunn’s feature of wherein the generated script (Gunn: at least Col. 8 Lines 54-56 & Col. 9 Lines 43-45) is in the Python scripting language (Gunn: at least Col. 10 Lines 1-3 & 27-29 and Col. 11 Lines 27-28) with the system disclosed by Debo, Echeverria and Bolsius.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform validation of generated scripts “to ensure that no syntax errors and/or logical errors are present in the scripts” (Gunn: at least Col. 6 Lines 62-65).
Claim 20 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
13 March 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168