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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending and rejected in the application.
Arguments
Applicant Argues
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending U.S. Patent No. 12,020,305. Applicant has amended the claims and respectfully submits that this rejection is now moot. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw this rejection of the claims and, further, allow the same.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments, noted above, with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legault et al. U.S. Patent (8,590,011; hereinafter: Legault) in view of Krishnamoorthy et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0138437; hereinafter: Krishnamoorthy)
Claims 1, 7, and 13
As to claims 1, 7, and 13, Legault discloses a system comprising:
a memory device storing instructions (column 11, lines 10-14, “The computer system of FIG. 10 generally also includes a video memory 1014, main memory…etc.”); and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, and the processing device executes the instructions to (column 11, lines 39-44, “Computer programs and data are generally stored as instructions…etc.”):
receive a query pertaining to a scope of searching for a configuration of a product (column 4, lines 19-40, the reference describes retrieving the results of a product configuration.);
retrieve, based on the converted query, information from a self-referencing data mode that store the information as one or more items having one or more item types.
Legault does not appear to explicitly disclose
based on a form of the query, determine one or more conversion algorithms to use from a plurality of algorithms, wherein different conversion algorithms are selected for different elements in the form of the query;
convert, using the one or more conversion algorithms, the query form the form to a second form to generate a converted query;
retrieve, based on the converted query, information from a self-referencing data mode that store the information as one or more items having one or more item types.
However, Krishnamoorthy does not appear to explicitly disclose based on a form of the query, determine one or more conversion algorithms to use from a plurality of algorithms, wherein different conversion algorithms are selected for different elements in the form of the query (Figure 7, paragraph[0051], the reference describes using a conversion engine to convert queries.);
convert, using the one or more conversion algorithms, the query form the form to a second form to generate a converted query (Figure 7, paragraph[0052], the reference describes converting a query to a different form.);
retrieve, based on the converted query, information from a self-referencing data model that store the information as one or more items having one or more item types (paragraph[0052], the reference describes querying and gathering data from a RDF. The Examiner interprets the RDF as a self-referencing data model. The reference describes the data in the RDF having data with types (e.g., paragraph[0055]-[0060]).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Legault with the teachings of Krishnamoorthy to convert queries which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Legault the teachings of Krishnamoorthy to efficiently provide an fast storage and retrieval system for data models that can leverage conventional relational database management systems (Krishnamoorthy: paragraph[0007]).
Claims 2, 8, and 14
As to claims 2, 8, and 14, the combination of Legault and Krishnamoorthy discloses all the elements in claim 13, as noted above, and Legault further disclose wherein the user interface includes one or more indications of whether a combination of values are compatible with each other or are not compatible with each other (figure 7, column 9, line 33-48, the reference describes determining whether the values are well-suited.).
Claims 3, 9, and 15
As to claims 3, 9, and 15, the combination of Legault and Krishnamoorthy discloses all the elements in claim 13, as noted above, and Legault further disclose wherein the processing device is further to use an application programming interface (API) to interact with a computing device of a user, wherein the API is hosted by a server external to the computing device. (column 12, lines 1-9, the reference describes using an server.).
Claims 4, 10, and 16
As to claims 4, 10, and 16, the combination of Legault and Krishnamoorthy discloses all the elements in claim 15, as noted above, and Legault further disclose wherein the self-referencing data model is agnostic to a type of data model associated with one or more files of the entity (column 8, lines 29-44, the reference describes the model being agnostic.).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legault et al. U.S. Patent (8,590,011; hereinafter: Legault) in view of Krishnamoorthy et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0138437; hereinafter: Krishnamoorthy) and further in view of Pearce et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Configuration management through satisfiability”, 2016; hereinafter: Pearce)
Claims 5, 11, and 17
As to claims 5, 11, and 17, the combination of Legault and Krishnamoorthy discloses all the elements in claim 13, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the self-referencing data model is agnostic to a type of data model associated with one or more files of the entity.
However, Pearce further disclose wherein the self-referencing data model is agnostic to a type of data model associated with one or more files of the entity (page 207, “Production rules that are written in if-then form require no is format the as, manipulation already a Boolean expression. To this set of rules are appended additional Boolean expressions to reflect the relationships implied by class, part family, and package ontologies…etc.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Legault with the teachings of Krishnamoorthy and Pearce to determine validity part rules which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Legault the teachings of Krishnamoorthy and Pearce to quickly propagate rule changes to maintain the correct rule status in a rule database (Pearce: page 205 of PDF).
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legault et al. U.S. Patent (8,590,011; hereinafter: Legault) in view of Krishnamoorthy et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0138437; hereinafter: Krishnamoorthy) and further in view of Lichtenberg et al. U.S. Patent (7,584,079; hereinafter: Lichtenberg)
Claims 6, 12, and 18
As to claims 6, 12, and 18, the combination of Legault and Krishnamoorthy discloses all the elements in claim 13, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the selection of the one or more conversion algorithms is based on an efficiency of computing resource usage.
However, Lichtenberg discloses wherein the selection of the one or more conversion algorithms is based on an efficiency of computing resource usage (column 19, lines 25-44, the reference describes determining which algorithm to select based on efficiency.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Legault with the teachings of Krishnamoorthy and Lichtenberg to determine data models which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Legault the teachings of Krishnamoorthy and Lichtenberg to quickly determine whether a collections of parts will work together (Lichtenberg: column 1, lines 5-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
January 22, 2026