DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed December 10, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 are currently amended. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite: applying a plurality of heuristics to the received structured query and the shared data model; detecting, prior to deploying the received structured query in a data application, a conflict between a first element of the structured query and a first element of the shared data model based on a first heuristic of the plurality of heuristics; generating a new structured query based on the received structured query and a first result, in response to detecting the first result of applying the first heuristic; generating a modified shared data model based on the shared data model and a second result, in response to detecting the second result of applying a second heuristic of the plurality of heuristics; wherein the conflict between the new structured query and the modified shared data model is resolved. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can mentally or manually apply heuristics, detect conflicts prior to deploying a query in an application, generate a new structured query, generate a modified shared data model, and resolve the conflict.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of receiving a structured query directed to a shared data model and deploying, in a computer (in the device or another computer OR in either the system or another computer), the new structured query in the data application. The “receiving” limitation is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The “deploying” limitation represents merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 9 and 10 also recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors, a processing circuitry, and a memory to perform recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discusses above, the “receiving” limitation is recited at a high level of generality. This elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il. The “deploying” limitation represents merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Further, the recitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors, a processing circuitry, and a memory “ to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 recite further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the generating and initiating steps in the human mind by observation and evaluation, and with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 2 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 11 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the identifying step in the human mind by observation and evaluation, and with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 3 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 12 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the generating and assigning steps in the human mind by observation and evaluation, and with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 4 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 13 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the generating step in the human mind by observation and evaluation, and with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 5 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 14 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 6 and 15 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the generating and replacing steps in the human mind by observation and evaluation, and with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 6 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 15 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the detecting steps in the human mind by observation and evaluation.
Claim 7 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 16 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further limitations that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill. For example, a user can perform the detecting steps in the human mind by observation and evaluation.
Claim 8 does not include any additional elements. As discussed above, the processing circuitry and a memory of claims 17 is recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are recited as performing generic computer functions and are used to perform the abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processing circuity and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not drawn to a mental process. Applicant argues that the human mind is not capable of applying a policy, rule or heuristic because it is subjective, inconsistent, and limited by fatigue and mistakes. However, just because mentally applying a policy, rule or heuristic MAY be subjective, inconsistent, and limited by fatigue and mistakes does not that the human mind is incapable of doing it.
Applicant further argues that like the computer data structures of pixels of digital images, and arrays forming a mask, in Research Corp., a query, particularly a "structured query," as claimed, and the claimed "shared data model," include computer data structures requiring manipulation in the application of the recited "first heuristic," and "second heuristic." The examiner disagrees. Unless pixels of a digital image, which require computer manipulation, applying heuristics to a query and shared model do not require computer based implementation and may be performed by paper. The specification gives examples of applies heuristics, but does not limit the term to only computer-based implementation. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of applying heuristics to a query and shared model includes non-computer based implementation such as applying heuristics to modify a query and shared model.
Applicant further argues that the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into practical application because it includes an improvement in the functioning of a computer, namely preventing propagation of errors throughout data application. The examiner disagrees. Preventing errors in the utilization of a data application does not improve the computer or functioning of the computer. Instead, it appears as though preventing errors would improve the data applications, which by definition is a software tool. Therefore, improving an application is not an improvement to the computer, but instead improvement to software or code, which can be written, resolved, or improved without a computer.
Applicant further argues that the claims have been amended to recite “deploying, in a computer, the new structured query in the data application,” which recites an improvement in the functioning of the computer. The examiner disagrees. Deploying, in a computer, the new structured query in the data application represents merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. As such, the claim does result in a practical application.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167