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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 16, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Metadata.
101 Rejection
Applicant states (pp. 9) that the claims are not mentally performable (Step 2A Prong One) because they recite numerous limitations that are expressly linked to the underlying computing elements. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since these underlying computing elements are high-level recitation of generic computer components/functions (Step 2A Prong Two).
Applicant further states (pp. 10) that the disclosed concepts must be performed by the content management system and cannot be performed by the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained below, the actions of generating templates, correlating templates to meta schema, generating query schema, transforming the query, and executing the transformed query are all mentally performable.
Applicant further states (pp. 11) that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees, because other than mentally performable claim elements, all the additional elements are either high-level recitation of generic computer components/functions, or recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
103 Rejection
Applicant states (pp. 16) that the cited prior art of record combined does not teach the amended limitation “executing the transformed query against a query store that stores metadata for the plurality of documents, wherein an output of the query processing comprises an identification of at least a portion of the subset of the plurality of documents in the content store of the content management system.” This is taught instead by combining Morrison and Noble with Metadata.
Morrison interrogates data structures (i.e., templates) of a data source, to determine (i.e., generate) a negotiated schema (i.e., meta schema) that is most closely related to those data structures (i.e., source schemas), by comparing to preexisting schema templates, applying heuristics based on user input, metadata tags, or machine learning [0021].
Users in Morrison query (i.e., execute against) the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., output) a combined rich query response that includes (i.e., identifies) data points (i.e., portion of subset) in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata [0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024].
Noble uses a database (i.e., content store in content management system) to store objects (i.e., documents) in tables of rows and columns (Noble: 1:10-16). The database contains one or more schemas, each is a logical owner of a set of objects representing an entity (Noble: 5:15-20). A schema defines a specific format (i.e., template) in which its objects are accessed (Noble: 6:1-3).
Metadata in relational databases is stored in a data dictionary or system catalog (i.e., query store), and holds schema information about tables, columns, data types, table relationship, and constraints (Metadata: pp. 1/3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Noble and Metadata to Morrison. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the universal schema of Noble as the meta schema of Morrison, on which SQL views are defined to serve existing queries against an underlying source schema.
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 as a mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
Claim 1 recites “A method”. Claim 7 recites “A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium”. Claim 13 recites “A system” comprising a processor. Each is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong One
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“generating…templates for content…, wherein each template…comprises fields for entry of designated information” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate content formats to identify common attributes shared by documents.
“correlating…templates to a common meta schema” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by correlating templates through shared attributes to form a common schema.
“generating a query schema from the meta schema…corresponds to a template” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by identifying the subset of attributes in the common meta schema that are being queried.
“transforming the query using…the query schema” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by translating a query against one schema into a transformed query against an underlying schema.
“executing the transformed query…wherein an output…comprises…documents” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by determining the set of documents that match a query against the schema of the documents.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 include additional elements “content management system”, “store”, “template”, “metadata”, “document”, “content”, “field”, “schema”, “query”, “instruction”, “processor”, “memory” and “programmable code”, which are high-level recitation of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 7 and 13 include addition element “receiving a query for processing against the document”, which qualifies as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II), and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
In summary, independent claims 1, 7 and 13 are not eligible. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 depend on claims 1, 7 and 13 respectively and recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong One
The following claims recite additional elements that are mentally performable.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 recite creating document, populating/creating metadata, and indexing document. One can mentally evaluate or judge to create a document, and to identify/index its metadata.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite fetching template, transforming query, and executing transformed query. One can mentally evaluate or judge to identify the structure of documents, formulate a query expressed using the structure, and match the query against documents.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 recite transforming query from a query language to a format. One can mentally evaluate or judge to translate queries from query language to data format, and match the query against documents.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 recite identifying and populating an field of the common schema that is queried. One can mentally evaluate or judge to identify the structure of documents, formulate a query using the structure, and match the query against documents.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 recite executing the query to get a result set of document IDs matching the query. One can mentally evaluate or judge to identify the set of documents that match the query.
Claims 19-20 recite generating documents matching a query by using a template. One can mentally evaluate or judge to identify the documents by matching them against a template with the same structure.
In summary, these dependent claims do not add any additional elements sufficient to make the claims non-abstract. Therefore, they are not eligible accordingly.
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, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. US patent application 2013/0086104 [herein “Morrison”], in view of Noble et al. US patent 5,926,810 [herein “Noble”], and further in view of Metadata in DBMS and its types. 2023, pp. 1-3. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dbms/metadata-in-dbms-and-its-types/ [herein “Metadata”].
Claim 1 recites “A method, comprising: generating a plurality of templates for content managed by a content management system, wherein each template of the plurality of templates comprises fields for entry of designated information within a document and the content comprises a plurality of documents in a content store;”
The instant specification [0004] defines a database table schema as the structure (i.e., logical grouping) for a type (i.e., attribute) of content (i.e., documents), and defines [0029] a metadata template as a logical grouping of metadata attributes. A schema can be associated with each metadata template [0034].
Morrison interrogates data structures (i.e., templates) of a data source, to determine (i.e., generate) a negotiated schema (i.e., meta schema) that is most closely related to those data structures (i.e., source schemas), by comparing to preexisting schema templates, applying heuristics based on user input, metadata tags, or machine learning [0021].
Claim 1 further recites “correlating the plurality of templates to a common meta schema instead of maintaining a separate schema for each separate template;”
Morrison generates the negotiated (i.e., common) schema that represents the interrelationships (i.e., correlations) between source schemas, with comparison and linking of the underlying source schemas [0023].
Claim 1 further recites “receiving a query for processing against the plurality of documents in the content store; and performing query processing by: generating a query schema from the meta schema, wherein the query schema corresponds to a template for at least a subset of the plurality of the documents;”
According to the instant specification [0040], a set of sales contract documents can be described by a metadata template containing a list of fields (i.e., attributes) that are populated (i.e., entered) with a set of metadata (i.e., designated information) [0031], such as date, customer name and price.
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema to obtain a combined rich query response that includes interrelated data points (i.e., field values) in multiple source schemas together with associated metadata [0020].
Claim 1 further recites “transforming the query using at least the query schema; and executing the transformed query against a query store that stores metadata for the plurality of documents, wherein an output of the query processing comprises an identification of at least a portion of the subset of the plurality of documents in the content store of the content management system.”
Users in Morrison query (i.e., execute against) the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., output) a combined rich query response that includes (i.e., identifies) data points (i.e., portion of subset) in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata [0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024].
Morrison does not disclose claim element “content store”; however, Noble uses a database (i.e., content store in content management system) to store objects (i.e., documents) in tables of rows and columns (Noble: 1:10-16). The database contains one or more schemas, each is a logical owner of a set of objects representing an entity (Noble: 5:15-20). A schema defines a specific format (i.e., template) in which its objects are accessed (Noble: 6:1-3).
Morrison does not disclose claim element “query schema”; however, Noble creates (i.e., generates) a view (i.e., query schema) of the universal schema (i.e., meta schema) to transform information from the new format of the view to the old format of an underlying schema through the universal schema (Noble: 6:31-33). The view is defined by a SQL command (i.e., query) (Noble: 6:44-47).
Morrison does not disclose claim element “query store”; however, metadata in relational databases is stored in a data dictionary or system catalog (i.e., query store), and holds schema information about tables, columns, data types, table relationship, and constraints (Metadata: pp. 1/3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Noble and Metadata to Morrison. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the universal schema of Noble as the meta schema of Morrison, on which SQL views are defined to serve existing queries against an underlying source schema.
Claims 7 and 13 are analogous to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising forming the query into an intermediate representation using the meta schema.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, where Noble creates a view of the universal schema (i.e., meta schema) to transform (i.e., forming) information (i.e., query) from the new format of the view to the old format of an underlying schema through (i.e., using) the universal schema (i.e., intermediate representation) (Noble: 6:31-33). The view is defined by a SQL command (i.e., query) (Noble: 6:44-47).
Claims 9 and 15 are analogous to claim 3, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the query is transformed from a query language format into a format corresponding to a field of the template for the document.”
In Morrison, data structures (i.e., templates) from a data source (i.e., documents) include database tables with foreign keys, web APIs returning JSON key-value pairs (i.e., fields) as result sets, flat files such as CVS, or NoSQL data sources [0019].
Morrison teaches claim 3, but does not disclose claim element “query language”; however, Noble accesses databases by code written in SQL (i.e., query language) (Noble: 5:46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Noble to Morrison. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the universal schema of Noble as the meta schema of Morrison, on which SQL views are defined to serve existing queries against an underlying source schema.
Claims 10 and 16 are analogous to claim 4, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 4, wherein an identification is made of the fields in the meta schema that correlate to the query, and populating the transformed query with identified fields from the meta schema.”
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema (i.e., meta schema) to obtain a combined (i.e., correlated) rich query response that includes data points in data structures from multiple data sources together with associated metadata (i.e., identified fields) [0020], where the data points are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated (i.e., transformed) [0024].
Claims 11 and 17 are analogous to claim 5, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one document of the plurality of documents was generated using a template of the plurality of templates.”
Users in Morrison query the negotiated schema to obtain (i.e., generate) a combined rich query response that includes data points (i.e., documents) in data structures (i.e., templates) from multiple data sources together with associated metadata [0020], where the data points obtained are aggregated, assembled, joined, or interrelated [0024].
Claim 20 is analogous to claim 19, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above respectively, in view of Noble and Metadata, and further in view of What are Search Engines. Feb. 2024, pp. 1-9. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-are-search-engines-and-how-do-they-work/ [herein “SearchEngine”].
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating the document; populating metadata for the document; creating a metadata instance for the document; and creating an index object in a query store for the document.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, but do not disclose this claim; however, the crawler of a search engine scans the web to visit available websites, and reads (i.e., creates) the associated webpages (i.e., documents) to collect (i.e., populate) the corresponding metadata (i.e., metadata instance). The indexer organizes, sorts and stores the crawled metadata (SearchEngine: pp. 2/9) in a database (i.e., query store) (SearchEngine: pp. 4/9). The indexed metadata (i.e., index object) is used by the ranker to analyze a query, find matching pages, and present results to users (SearchEngine: pp. 3/9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of SearchEngine to Morrison and Noble. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize an industry standard search engine to crawl, index and rank objects of Noble in order to answer queries of Morrison as search results independent of schema changes.
Claims 8 and 14 are analogous to claim 2, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the query processing produces a set of document identifiers, and a hydrated result set is produced by retrieving documents corresponding to the document identifiers.”
Morrison and Noble teach claim 1, but do not disclose this claim; however, the crawler of a search engine scans the web to visit available websites, and reads the associated webpages (i.e., documents) to collect the corresponding metadata. The indexer organizes, sorts and stores the crawled metadata (SearchEngine: pp. 2/9). The indexed metadata is used by the ranker to analyze a query, find (i.e., produce) matching pages (i.e., document IDs), and present search results to users, often enriched (i.e., hydrated) with other elements such as ads or direct answers (i.e., retrieved documents) (SearchEngine: pp. 3/9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of SearchEngine to Morrison and Noble. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize an industry standard search engine to crawl, index and rank objects of Noble in order to answer queries of Morrison as search results independent of schema changes.
Claims 12 and 18 are analogous to claim 6, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Caruccio et al. Synchronization of Queries and Views Upon Schema Evolutions: A Survey. ACM TODS 2016, vol. 41 issue 2, no. 9, pp. 1-41.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLY X. QIAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SHELLY X QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154