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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on September 22, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 1718 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims as amended have been considered but are not persuasive.
Referring to claim 1, Applicant argues that DeBoer does not teach generating, via a first data service, a query specification according to one or more data fields of the data source. However Examiner respectfully disagrees. DeBoer discloses that the data source connector 1802, specifically the script of the data source connector 1802, formats the attributes of the search query in the native language of the data intake and query system into an external source query language (ESQL) statement of the external source 1804 [para 38, Fig 19, element 1908]. Examiner submits that the formatting of the attributes of the search into an ESQL (e.g. SOQL) statement is generating a query specification as provided by the script of the data source connector 1802 because it specifies the kind of formatting needed to be performed on the native language search query in order to be executed by the external source. As such, Examiner maintains that DeBoer does teach generating, via a first data service, a query specification according to one or more data fields of the data source, as amended.
Referring to claim 6, Applicant argues that Do Boer’s sequence of commands arranged in a sequence is not a serialized data format. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that the arrangement of commands in a specific order that form a sequence creates a serialized series of commands. Furthermore, DeBoer discloses that the query formulated comprises a series of consecutive commands [para 203], which further explains the serialized nature of the sequence of commands. As such, Examiner maintains that De Boer does teach a serialized data format.
Referring to claim 10, Applicant argues that DeBoer does not teach formatting data values of date/time fields from a priority format to a standard date format. However Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that De Boer discloses that the query can be formatted with selected filtering criteria (e.g. createdDate=today, see formatted query with createdate filter selected in Fig 23H-I) from among time periods allowed by the external source [para 389]. Examiner submits that the allowed time periods are priority formats because they are criteria permitted by the external source and the ‘createdDate’ filter is a standard date format, as seen in the search result attributes in Fig 23H-I. As such, Examiner maintains that De Boer does teach formatting data values of date/time fields from a priority format to a standard date format, as claimed.
All other arguments not addressed are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/24/25 and 11/20/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0149935 by De Boer.
Referring to claim 1, De Boer discloses a method for retrieving data, performed at a computer system executing a first data service and having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors, the method comprising [machine 2400, medium 2422 with instructions 2424, processor 2402, para 402, 405; machine 2400 includes an application, applet, app or program that is executed to perform functions in Fig 19-22, para 402-403, Fig 24; data intake and query system 108 comprising datasource connector 1802, Fig 18, para 328]:
receiving, from a programmatic interface of a client device via one or more external API calls, a query that specifies a data source and one or more data fields of the data source [user interface for search screen 800, para 238, Fig 8A; user inputs search string and can specify different sources for events and time ranges, para 238; command to perform live query against API of external source is received, the command triggers a config file that calls a script associated with datasource connector customized for the external source, para 341, Fig 19, element 1902];
in accordance with receiving the query:
generating, via the first data service, a query specification according to the one or more data fields of the data source, wherein the query specification is an extended version of the one or more external API calls [datasource connector 1802 takes search query comprising attributes of in a native language of the native data search and formats/translates the attributes of the search query into a query language statement in a native language of the external source 1804, the datasource connector corresponding to the external source to which the API call is made, para 33, formatted to ESQL statement, para 330, 340-341, 368, Fig 19, element 1908, Fig 20 and corresponding portions of specification];
transmitting, via the first data service, the query specification to a second data service that is different from the first data service, and causing the second data service to execute one or more database queries to retrieve data against a database to retrieve query results from the data source, according to the query specification [ESQL (formatted) statement sent to API of external source which causes the external source 1804 (i.e. reads on: second data service) to run the query against its live data, para 369, Fig 19, element 1910; datasource connector 1802 performs query with ESQL statement, para 331];
receiving, via the first data service, the query results from the second data service [results received by datasource connector 1802 from external source 1804, para 370, Fig 19, element 1912];
configuring, via the first data service, the query results to obtain configured data [results reformatted by datasource connector 1802 into native system format, para 371, Fig 19, element 1914]; and
transmitting, via the first data service, the configured data to the client device for display in the programmatic interface [results displayed in tabular format at client device 404, para 374-375, Fig 20, element 2010].
Referring to claim 13, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a system [machine 2400, para 402, 405, Fig 24] comprising one or more processors [processor 2402, para 402, 405, Fig 24]; memory storing programs including instructions [medium 2422 with instructions 2424, para 402, 405, Fig 24; memory 2404, 2406,2402, para 409, Fig 24]. As such, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 20, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a computer medium storing programs for execution by one or more processors [medium 2422 with instructions 2424, para 402, 405, Fig 24] and memory [memory 2404, 2406,2402, para 409, Fig 24]. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 3 and 15, De Boer discloses that the query further specifies one or more filters to apply to the query, each of the one or more filters including a data column to filter on and a filter type [fields-percent filter, para 211, Fig 6B, para 205].
Referring to claim 4, De Boer discloses that the filter type includes: a quantitative filter [time range, para 168], a set filter, a date filter [para 204], or a topN filter [top ten product names by price 1201, para 259, Fig 12].
Referring to claims 5 and 16, De Boer discloses that transmitting, via the first data service, the query specification to the second data service includes converting, via the first data service, the query specification into a data format that is compatible with the data service [datasource connector 1802 formats the attributes of the query into a query language statement in a native language of the external source 1804, para 33, formatted to ESQL statement, para 330, 340-341, 368, Fig 19, element 1908].
Referring to claim 6, De Boer discloses that the data format comprises a serialized data format [sequence of commands, para 201-204; series of consecutive commands, para 203].
Referring to claims 8 and 18, De Boer discloses that the query specifies a sort priority for the one or more data fields; and configuring, via the first data service, the query results to obtain configured data includes sorting the query results according to the sort priority [sort order, para 180].
Referring to claim 10, De Boer discloses that configuring, via the first data service, the query results to obtain the configured data includes formatting by the first data service data values of date/time fields from a priority format to a standard date format [filtering criteria includes a time period specific to time periods allowed by the external source 1804 (e.g. today, yesterday, week to date etc.), para 389; see query with ‘createdDate’ filter selected, Fig 23H-I].
Referring to claim 11, De Boer discloses that the configured data comprises an object format or an array format [tabular format, para 374].
Referring to claim 12, De Boer discloses that the configured data does not include any data visualization [JSON or XML format, para 335].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0149935 by De Boer, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 2019/0034496 by Acosta et al (hereafter Acosta).
Referring to claims 2 and 14, De Boer discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses returning query results in a JSON format in response to a native format query [De Boer, para 335], however remains silent as to the query comprises a JSON object. Acosta discloses that an input query could comprise a JSON object [para 64, Fig 6].
De Boer and Acosta are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- querying data sources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the native format query of De Boer to include the JSON object taught by Acosta because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because it would be in the realm of De Boer’s formatting capabilities since De Boer teaches formatting the native query to JSON format and furthermore, Acosta’s JSON format of query would further refine the native format query of De Boer.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Boer, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 2004/0243593 by Stolte et al (hereafter Stolte).
Referring to claims 7 and 17, De Boer discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses converting the formatting of the input native query into a query language statement in a native language of the external source [para 33, 330, 340-341, 368, Fig 19, element 1908] and transmitting the query to the API of the external source [Fig 19, element 1910], however remains silent as to converting the query specification into one or more abstract queries, wherein the one or more abstract queries are lower level queries than the query specification.
Stolte discloses converting a visual specification 550 derived from user-selected (i.e. queried) operand names corresponding to each selected database 558 [para 107] into a set of one or more abstract query descriptions 554 that describe the required queries using values specified in the visual specification 550 [para 123, Fig 6, element 606]. Stolte furthermore teaches that the abstract query descriptions 554 are used to query databases [para 97]. Examiner submits that because the abstracted query descriptions are derived from the visual specification, they are lower level queries than the visual (query) specification.
De Boer and Stolte are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- querying data sources/databases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formatting of queries of De Boer to include conversion to a lower level abstract query from a query specification, as in Stolte because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because it would further refine the query formatting capabilities of De Boer.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Boer, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 2002/0069193 by Beavin et al (hereafter Beavin).
Referring to claims 9 and 19, De Boer discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses extraction rules that include truncating a character string [para 213, 225], however remains silent as to the truncation according to a maximum number of decimal places. Beavin discloses truncation of the length of an integer to a length of a small integer [para 50, 53].
De Boer and Beavin are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- query optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction, specifically truncation, rules of De Boer to include decimal (integer) truncation, as in Beavin because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because it would further refine the truncation formatting rules of De Boer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 10am-6:30pm.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached on 571-272-3645. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2167
/C.M.S/
/ROBERT W BEAUSOLIEL JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2167