DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant's communication filed on 09/22/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant's remarks and amendments, in response to the last Office Action, have been considered with the results that follow:
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are now pending in this application.
The previously raised objections to claim 13 is withdrawn in view of Applicant's remarks and amendments to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments regarding “Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101” on pages 4-8:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments
“…Claim 1 addresses these technical problems by providing a specific solution ...This process recited by claim 1 is not a generic application of computer technology, but rather a practical application that overcomes limitations of prior art query systems for structured datasets Claim 1 provides a number of technical improvements…claim enables data retrieval from structured datasets using natural language queries, without requiring users to have knowledge of the underlying schema or valid attribute values It is highly scalable, capable of handling datasets with millions of attribute values, and supports low-latency processing. The system is robust to ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise noisy queries, and can generate multiple filters from a single query, supporting complex data retrieval scenarios. These improvements are rooted in the computer technology via the technical approach recited by claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a specific, technical solution to a technical problem in the field of computer technology. It is not merely an abstract idea performed on a computer, but rather a patent-eligible improvement to the functioning of computers and data retrieval systems, as supported by the detailed disclosure in the patent application.”
The examiner notes that the claim doesn’t appear to recite any specific steps corresponding to the possible technical improvements that the applicant has described. For instance, there is nothing in the current claim language that specifies or requires that the natural language query is received from a user who does not have knowledge of the underlying schema/attribute values. Further, there is nothing in the current claim language that specifies or requires that the various steps, including the generating initial/valid filter and identifying valid attribute name/value steps, are scalable to process millions of attribute values, or enables low-latency processing. The current claim language only refers to the initial/valid filter including one initial/valid attribute name/value, and doesn’t really address the extent of incomplete/noisy queries. There is also nothing in the current claim language that specifies or requires that the various steps support generating multiple filters from a single query. Given this, the examiner maintains that the amended claims are also directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible, as further discussed in the USC 101 section below.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments
“Step 2B…Prior approaches to querying structured datasets using natural language either required extensive manual mapping, relied on brittle rule-based systems, or attempted to use generative models directly…Claim 1 addresses these limitations by decoupling the generative model's output from the final filter resolution…This multi-step process reduces latency, improves robustness to ambiguous or incomplete queries, and enables scalable, accurate data retrieval from datasets with large number of attribute names and attribute values…combination of generative modeling and post-processing filter resolution is a specific solution to the technical problem…, and is not found in conventional systems… Accordingly, claim 1 recites a specific, non-conventional combination of technical elements that together provide an inventive solution to a technical problem in computer technology. The claim is not directed to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, but instead embodies a technical improvement over prior approaches…”.
With regards to applicant’s description of the purported technical improvements not found in conventional systems, the examiner notes that the current claim language neither appears to recite any specific/complex steps that might lead to the various technical problems discussed, nor recites enough details for the steps to describe how the purported technical improvements would be realized, as also discussed above (for instance, nothing in the current claim language specifies/requires that query is received from a user who doesn’t have knowledge of underlying schema/attribute values, or that the various steps include elements describing how the process can be scaled to process millions of attribute values, enable low-latency processing or handle incomplete queries. Further, the current claim language only refers to creating a single filter and one initial/valid attribute name/value, which involves a very simplistic process and does not support that the steps can handle multiple filters or large datasets). Given this, the examiner maintains that nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The various steps in the claim simply encompasses the user thinking about a question represented using natural language, analyzing it in his mind to identify any attribute name and value specified in the question along with the type of association/relationship between the name and value, further thinking about and framing an initial query representation with the attribute name, value and the association between them, and realizing that the initial representation is noisy as one or both of the attribute name and attribute value does not match any of the valid attribute names or values found within an available set of information. Further, the claim encompasses the user thinking about and realizing the correct/valid representation for the identified attribute name/value based on the valid attribute names/values found within the available set of information, and finally framing a final query filter by replacing one or both of the initial attribute name/value in the initial query representation with corresponding correct/valid representation of attribute name/value as identified in the previous step, and finally identifying data from the available set of information based on the final query filter and then identifying an output based on the identified data.
With regards to step 2B, the examiner notes that, other than the claim elements identified as abstract ideas of a mental process as described above, the additional elements of: ‘receiving…a natural language query…’, ‘providing, by the user interface component, a response…’ and ‘server/ query processing system/user interface component/user device’ all seem to be recited at a high level of generality. As further discussed in the USC 101 section below, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claim 1: it appears the claim element ‘structure dataset’ in the limitations ‘identifying, by at least one server of the one or more servers, a valid attribute value corresponding to the initial attribute value from a plurality of valid attribute values in the structure dataset’ and ‘identifying, by at least one server of the one or more servers, a valid attribute name corresponding to the initial attribute name from a plurality of valid attribute names in the structure dataset’ should read ‘structured dataset’.
Dependent claims 2-11 are also objected to for the above reasons.
In independent claim 12: it is unclear if the element ‘structured dataset’ in limitation ‘searching an exact match data store storing data for a plurality of
valid attribute values in a structured dataset’ is the same as the claim elements ‘structured dataset’ in the prior limitation ‘generating, by a generative model, an initial filter based on the natural language query, … wherein the initial filter is noisy because the initial attribute name does not exactly match any valid attribute name in a structured dataset and/or the initial attribute value does not exactly match any valid attribute value in the structured dataset’. Examiner requests clarification of its scope/antecedent basis.
The examiner also requests applicant to clarify scope of the claim element ‘valid attribute name’ in limitation ‘identifying, by the attribute resolving component, a valid attribute name corresponding to the initial attribute name;’, by confirming if this element is from the structured dataset as indicated for ‘valid attribute value’ in the prior limitations.
Dependent claims 13-16 are also objected to for the above reasons.
In independent claim 17: it appears the limitation ‘identifying, by an attribute resolving component …, a valid attribute value corresponding to the initial attribute value and a valid attribute value corresponding to the initial attribute name;’ should read ‘identifying, by an attribute resolving component …, a valid attribute value corresponding to the initial attribute value and a valid attribute name corresponding to the initial attribute name;’. The examiner also requests applicant to clarify scope of the claim elements ‘valid attribute value, valid attribute name’, by confirming if these two elements are from the structured dataset as indicated in the prior limitations.
Dependent claims 18-20 are also objected to for the above reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 12 and 17,
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The limitations of “generating, by a generative model, an initial filter based on the natural language query, the initial filter including an initial attribute name and an initial attribute value with an operator associating the initial attribute name and the initial attribute value, wherein the initial filter is noisy because the initial attribute name does not exactly match any valid attribute name in a structured dataset and/or the initial attribute value does not exactly match any valid attribute value in the structured dataset; identifying, by at least one server of the one or more servers, a valid attribute value corresponding to the initial attribute value from a plurality of valid attribute values in the structure dataset; identifying, by at least one server of the one or more servers, a valid attribute name corresponding to the initial attribute name from a plurality of valid attribute names in the structure dataset; generating, by at least one server of the one or more servers, a valid filter from the initial filter by replacing the initial attribute value in the initial filter with the valid attribute value and/or replacing the initial attribute name in the initial filter with the valid attribute name; retrieving, by at least one server of the one or more servers, data from the structured dataset using the valid filter; and generating an output using the retrieved data.”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “computer, server”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “computer, server” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about a question represented using natural language and analyzing it in his mind to identify any attribute name and value specified in the question along with the type of association/relationship between the name and value, further thinking about and framing an initial query representation with the attribute name, value and the association between them, and realizing that the initial representation is noisy as one or both of the attribute name and attribute value does not match any of the valid attribute names or values found within an available set of information. In addition, but for the “computer, server” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about and realizing the correct/valid representation for the identified attribute name/value based on the valid attribute names/values found within the available set of information. Furthermore, but for the “computer, server” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about and framing a final query filter by replacing one or both of the initial attribute name/value in the initial query representation with corresponding correct/valid representation of attribute name/value as identified in the previous step, and finally identifying data from the available set of information based on the final query filter and then identifying an output based on the identified data.
Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas of a mental process and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements of: ‘receiving…a natural language query…’, ‘providing, by the user interface component, a response…’ and ‘server/ query processing system/user interface component/user device’. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Other additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“computer”). Accordingly, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claim: ‘receiving…a natural language query…’, ‘providing, by the user interface component, a response…’ and ‘server/query processing system/user interface component/user device’ are all recited at a high level of generality, and the receiving, providing elements amount to mere data gathering and data outputting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity, and being computer-implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The specification does not provide any indication that such data collection or manipulation is performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving and providing steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer memo. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20,
Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Similarly, claims 13-16 are dependent on claim 12 and include all the limitations of claim 12, and claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17 and include all the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas of a mental process.
Further, claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ANUGEETHA KUNJITHAPATHAM whose telephone number is (408)918-7510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PT.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165