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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, and 19 have been amended, claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-30 have been added. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19 and 21-30 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification failed to provide a support for the following limitation – “simple query condition”; “parsing a name of a target field of the query object”; “converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator.”
Appropriate clarification 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 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite query mapping method.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19 and 21-30 recite a method and a product and thus, are directed to the statutory class.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites -
▪ receiving an instance of a query object (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally receive query with conditions);
▪ generating a plurality of query conditions for assigned fields of the instance for a target database, which comprises: generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database by applying a field mapping method selected based on least one characteristic of a respective assigned field, wherein the query condition comprises a simple query condition comprising a column name, a conditional operator, and a value (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically identify query conditions for a tabular content and generate mappings between fields based on mapping means); and
▪ wherein the field mapping method comprises a suffix mapping method configured for: parsing a name of a target field of the query object into a column name and a pre- defined suffix that is able to be mapped to a conditional operator of the target database (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally parse a query to determine conditions, fields and a suffix for mapping to the database);
▪ converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically convert a query string into a logical operator);
▪ constructing the simple query condition for the target field by using the column name, the conditional operator, and a value of the target field (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically construct a query and assign columns, values and logical operators to facilitate searching) and
▪ generating a query clause for the target database based on the plurality of query conditions using a logical AND operator (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally generate a query statement by combining conditions).
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claims 1, 9 as well as independents claims 11 and 19, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 9, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (explaining that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ to supply an ‘inventive concept’” (emphasis in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294)); id. at 2358 (“limiting the use of an abstract idea ‘to a particular technological environment’” is “not enough for patent eligibility” (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370 (“mere [data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise non-statutory claim statutory”).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms. See, e.g., Spec. J] 30-34, 123-134; Figs. 1, 10.
Independent system claim 1, 9, 11 and 19 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of the product, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-8, 12-18 and 20 do not recite additional limitations that demonstrate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the dependent claims simply recite further details of the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ Claims 2 and 12 - acquiring values of the assigned fields using reflection functionality provided by a programming language; selecting, for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method based on the at least one characteristic of the respective assigned field; and applying the selected field mapping method to the respective assigned field to generate the query condition (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Here, an additional logical reasoning and mapping of fields.)
▪ Claims 3 and 13 – selecting field mapping methods for all fields of the query object to obtain a field mapping adaptation table corresponding to the query object; acquiring values of the assigned fields using reflection functionality provided by a programming language; selecting, for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method of the respective assigned field based on the field mapping adaptation table; and applying the selected field mapping method to the respective assigned field to generate the query condition (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Here, an additional logical reasoning and evaluation of data).
▪ Claims 4 and 14 – calling and executing a query object mapping code using the instance of the query object to obtain the query condition corresponding to each of the assigned fields, wherein the query object mapping code is generated according to all fields of the query object obtained through an abstract syntax tree functionality provided by a programming language and corresponding query conditions obtained by selecting and applying field mapping methods (a generic computer functions of receiving and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, which does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea).
▪ Claims 20 -20 – the query condition further comprises a composite query condition comprising a plurality of simple query conditions combined by one or more logical operators; wherein each simple query condition of the composite query condition is generated by the suffix mapping method (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Here, an additional mathematical /logical reasoning). (i.e. additional generic logical evaluations and observations and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Such element amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and are well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner - see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-4, 12-14 and 21-30 are thus, patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims disclose limitation – “converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator.” This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0018] (published version) instead teaches –
“map a field whose name contains a specific suffix in the query object into a corresponding query condition and can also be described as mapping a field whose name contains a specific suffix in the query object into a corresponding query condition” (i.e. field is mapped into a corresponding query condition, not the suffix). The suffix (such as Eq, Lt, Ge, etc.) corresponds to the query condition as shown in the tables in paragraphs [0058], [0062], wherein “suffix mapping method is applied to obtain the corresponding template query conditions”. There is no disclosure that the suffix itself is ever converted. Although such functionality might be a reasonable assumption, it is still not an original disclosure.
Thus, there is also no teaching of the limitation – “converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator.” The dependent claims further carry the same deficiency and likewise rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19, 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20180218032) in view of João Vitor Lopes Cabral, et al. "Enabling schema-independent data retrieval queries in MongoDB" hereafter JVLC in view of Belcher et al. (US 20180137177) and in further view of Dettinger et al. (US 2006/0161521).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a computer-implemented query object mapping method, comprising:
receiving an instance of a query object ([0386]);
generating a plurality of query conditions for assigned fields of the instance for a target database ([0121], [0387]), which comprises:
generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database by applying a field mapping method (NOTE I) selected based on least one characteristic of a respective assigned field ([0307], [0310], [0370]-[0375]),
wherein the query condition comprises a simple query condition comprising a column name, a conditional operator, and a value ([0055], [0161]-[0163], [0405]), and
wherein the field mapping method comprises a suffix mapping method ([0364], [0370], [0390]) configured for:
parsing a name of a target field of the query object into a column name and a pre- defined suffix ([0352]-[0356] where {bind} is a suffix) that is able to be mapped to a conditional operator of the target database ([0183], [0385]);
converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator ([0230], [0244], [0297], [0300], [0321]-[0322], [0370] “translator replaces SFSQL ${ } macro binding statements at compile time with appropriate Oracle or SFSQL DB syntax”, [0374]); and
constructing the simple query condition for the target field by using the column name, the conditional operator, and a value of the target field ([0106], [0191]-[0192], [0271], [0317], [0492]); and
generating a query clause for the target database based on the plurality of query conditions using a logical AND operator ([0210], [0215], [0251], [0414], [0422])(NOTE II).
NOTE I Wong teaches translating received database query into a plurality of multiple compliant database queries for different heterogeneous destinations [0414], wherein each query comprise corresponding fields and conditions, which “maps key prefixes to actual database table names or views” [0183] and keeping “track of the mapping” [0263], [0307], which is construed to be analogous to the claimed “a field mapping method”.
However, to merely obviate such reasoning, JVLC discloses a field mapping method (P.10 c2 “For each mapping a MongoDB database was created”, F1, F3 see G1 see query using mapping 1…n, p.6 2nd column “mapping (ModelMapping) is a set of rules (MapRule) that describe how an entity or relationship”). 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 teachings of JVLC to include a field mapping method as disclosed by JVLC. Doing so provides more flexibility in establishing the mapping between entities, relationships and document collections. (JVLC Abstract).
NOTE II Wong teaches translating a query into plurality of simple conditions using a logical AND operators, “which is target appropriate” as shown in the numerous examples. However, to further obviate such reasoning Dettinger discloses combining query conditions into a query clause by using a logical AND operator ([0066] “conditions themselves may be "ANDed" together”, [0075]). NOTE Dettinger further explicitly discloses a query condition corresponding to each assigned field ([0015], [0017]).
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 teachings of Wong to include logical AND operator as disclosed by Dettinger. Doing so would help interpret the conditions specified by the query and create a resolved query that includes the conditions (Dettinger [0010]).
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Wong as modified teaches the computer-implemented query object mapping method and the medium, wherein the generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database by applying a field mapping method selected based on at least one characteristic of a respective assigned field comprises: acquiring values of the assigned fields using reflection functionality provided by a programming language (Wong [0230], [0310], [0414], JVLC p.6 2nd column “For each rule, a dictionary is used to establish the relation between the ER attributes and MongoDB fields in each side”, Dettinger [0062]);
selecting, for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method based on the at least one characteristic of the respective assigned field (JVLC Fig.1 and Fig. 3, p.3 C2 “Fig. 1, mapping 2, a query searching for car colors could look into DocTypeCar or DocTypePerson”, p.4 C2 “(entities, attributes and relationships) correspond to which MongoDB elements (documents and fields)… automatically transform data retrieval queries designed for the ER model to execute in a specific MongoDB schema”), Dettinger [0015], [0017])); and applying the selected field mapping method to the respective assigned field to generate the query condition (Wong [0357], [0514]-[0515], JVLC p.6 second column, Dettinger [0064]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wong as modified teaches the computer-implemented query object mapping method and the medium, wherein the generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database by applying a field mapping method selected based on at least one characteristic of a respective assigned field comprises: selecting field mapping methods for all fields of the query object to obtain a field mapping adaptation table corresponding to the query object (Wong [0230], [0310], [0414], JVLC p.6 2nd column “For each rule, a dictionary is used to establish the relation between the ER attributes and MongoDB fields in each side”, Dettinger [0017], [0019], [0062]); acquiring values of the assigned fields using reflection functionality provided by a programming language (JVLC p.6 2nd column “For each rule, a dictionary is used to establish the relation between the ER attributes and MongoDB fields in each side”, Dettinger [0062]); selecting, for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method of the respective assigned field based on the field mapping adaptation table (Wong [0230], [0310], [0414], , JVLC Fig.1 and Fig. 3, p.3 C2 “Fig. 1, mapping 2, a query searching for car colors could look into DocTypeCar or DocTypePerson”, p.4 C2 “(entities, attributes and relationships) correspond to which MongoDB elements (documents and fields)… automatically transform data retrieval queries designed for the ER model to execute in a specific MongoDB schema”), Dettinger [0015], [0017]); and applying the selected field mapping method to the respective assigned field to generate the query condition (JVLC p.6 second column, Dettinger [0064], Wong [0230], [0310], [0414]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wong as modified teaches the computer-implemented query object mapping method and the medium, wherein the generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database by applying a field mapping method selected based on at least one characteristic of a respective assigned field comprises: calling and executing a query object mapping code using the instance of the query object to obtain the query condition corresponding to each of the assigned fields (JVLC p. 8 “new list, called JavascriptCommands. In lines 13–15, each MongoDB operator is converted into a Javascript command … the list of Javascript commands is converted into string format GenerateFinalCode …, taking the CollectionName and JavascriptCommands as parameters, Dettinger [0059], [0071]), wherein the query object mapping code is generated according to all fields of the query object (JVLC p.6 “establish the relation between the ER attributes and MongoDB fields in each side”) obtained through an abstract syntax tree functionality provided by a programming language (Wong [0377], [0384], [0393]) and corresponding query conditions obtained by selecting and applying field mapping methods (JVLC p.5 1st column “automatically generate queries according to the different mapping possibilities between the ER model and the document oriented database system… this algorithm … for a given mapping, different queries are possible … Mapping 1 can lead to queries Q1 and Q2”, p.6 2nd column, p.14 1st paragraph “in the handcrafted queries, the lookup operator was used with a direct reference between the identifying fields of both collections. In the generated queries, a generic boolean expression was used as the match operand”, Abstract “establishes the mapping between entities, relationships and document collections. From a single ER-based data retrieval query, native query code is automatically generated for any logical/physical schema”, Dettinger [0015], [0017], [0019]).
Claims 9 and 19 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 21-30, Wong as modified teaches the, wherein the query condition further comprises a composite query condition comprising a plurality of simple query conditions combined by one or more logical operators; wherein each simple query condition of the composite query condition is generated by the suffix mapping method (Wong [0230], [0244], [0297], [0300], [0321]-[0322], [0370], [0374]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 is/are additionally or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as modified in further view of Liu et al. (US 20170060973).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Wong as modified teaches the computer-implemented query object mapping method and the medium as disclosed above. However, if Wong as modified as modified does not explicitly teach, Liu discloses acquiring values of the assigned fields via reflection ([0076]-[0082]) and selecting for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method based on the specific characteristic of the respective assigned field ([0078], [0102]-[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Wong as modified to include applying a reflection as disclosed by Liu. Doing so provides flexibility of evolving the mirror-format for semi-structured data without worrying about on-disk compatibility issues (Liu [0028]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wong as modified teaches the computer-implemented query object mapping method and the medium as disclosed above. However, if Wong as modified as modified does not explicitly teach Liu discloses field mapping adaptation table ([0068], [0079]) and acquiring an assigned value of each field in the instance of the query object by applying a reflection technology ([0076]-[0082]) and selecting, for each of the assigned fields, the field mapping method of the respective assigned field based on the field mapping adaptation table ([0078], [0102]-[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Wong as modified to include applying a reflection technology as disclosed by Liu. Doing so provides flexibility of evolving the mirror-format for semi-structured data without worrying about on-disk compatibility issues (Liu [0028]).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 19 is/are additionally or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over João Vitor Lopes Cabral, et al. "Enabling schema-independent data retrieval queries in MongoDB" hereafter JVLC in view of Belcher et al. (US 20180137177) and in further view of Dettinger et al. (US 2006/0161521).
Regarding claim 1, JVLC teaches a computer-implemented query object mapping method, comprising: generating a plurality of query conditions for assigned fields of the instance for a target database (p. 8 C2 see Algorithm 1: Query generator algorithm, “output: Native Query Code in Javascript for MongoDB”, “GenerateFinalCode(CollectionName,JavascriptCommands)”, Fig.2-3, G1, F7 “Instance of the mapping between an ER Model and a MongoDB schema”), which comprises:
generating, for each of the assigned fields of the instance, a query condition for the target database (p. 8 C2 see Algorithm 1: Query generator algorithm – “foreach eo in EROperators do MongoDBOps ←− ConvertToMongoDBOperators(eo,em,ms,emm)) by applying a field mapping method (P.10 c2 “For each mapping a MongoDB database was created”, F1, F3 see G1 see query using mapping 1…n, p.6 2nd column “mapping (ModelMapping) is a set of rules (MapRule) that describe how an entity or relationship”) selected based on least one characteristic of a respective assigned field (Fig.1 and Fig. 3, p.3 C2 “Fig. 1, mapping 2, a query searching for car colors could look into DocTypeCar or DocTypePerson”, p.4 C2 “(entities, attributes and relationships) correspond to which MongoDB elements (documents and fields)… automatically transform data retrieval queries designed for the ER model to execute in a specific MongoDB schema”),
wherein the query condition comprises a simple query condition comprising a column name, a conditional operator, and a value (P.11 Table 1), and wherein the field mapping method comprises a operator mapping method (p.6 second column 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and F7, p.8 “Each MongoDB operator will be converted into Javascript, and then joined into a final string, shown in Listing 6”) configured for:
parsing a name of a target field of the query object into a column name and a pre- defined operator (p. 8C1 2.4 “query parser is executed. … the parser produces a list of ER operators (EROperators)… that represent the query”) that is able to be mapped to a conditional operator of the target database;
converting the pre-defined operator to the conditional operator (p. 8C1 2.4 “Each ER Operator … will be converted to a list of MongoDB operators … take as input the ER operator, the ER model, the MongoDB schema and the ER to MongoDB mapping”)
generating a query clause for the target database based on the plurality of query conditions using a logical AND operator (p.9 C2 “Each MongoDB operator will be converted into Javascript, and then joined into a final string”, p.7 “elements are mapped to it (between < and >)”, p.14 “to MongoDB’s lookup operator: in the handcrafted queries, the lookup operator was used with a direct reference between the identifying fields of both collections. In the generated queries, a generic boolean expression was used as the match operand”)(see NOTE).
JVLC does not explicitly teach, however Belcher discloses wherein the field mapping method comprises a suffix mapping method configured for: parsing a name of a target field of the query object into a column name and a pre- defined suffix that is able to be mapped to a conditional operator of the target database ([0024] “parsing the expression string to extract one or more substrings from the expression string”; “for each substring, classifying the substring to determine a corresponding programmatic query filter type and extracting one or more programmatic query filter parameters by parsing the substring based on a reference filter parameter syntax”, [0072] “extract identifiers that match all of the parameters of the filters”);
converting the pre-defined suffix to the conditional operator ([0073] “expression string is broken into a series of individual sections, which are then converted into specific programmatic query language queries that are executed against the backend data”, [0117] “generate the SQL queries and map the SQL lexicon and grammar to the RLQL lexicon and grammar”); and
constructing the simple query condition for the target field by using the column name, the conditional operator, and a value of the target field ([0090]-[0091], [0094], [0095] “build one or more complex or simple SQL statements”, [0103] “generates a simpler SQL query and executes the query to retrieve a larger dataset than that indicated by the RLQL query”, [0108]).
NOTE Belcher does not explicitly teach suffix. However, Belcher teaches parsing query into “different components or sections. A section is a logical division of an RLQL query and is defined by a grouping of one or more lexical token(s), word(s), number(s), and/or list(s)” [0076], wherein – “A filter corresponding to each section may also be applied to an RLQL query” [0120]; “evaluate an RLQL query by processing each lexical token” [0166]; “identify sections in an RLQL query, irrespective of the order that the sections in the RLQL query are in. Each section uses specific keywords unique to that section” [0189], [0195], [0207]. Processing each section of the query irrespective of the order implicitly indicates processing all of the strings of the query and thus, obviously includes all the prefix and suffix sections.
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 teachings of Belcher to include suffix mappings as disclosed by JVLC. Doing so may increase the ease and/or efficiency with which data in one or more databases is found (Belcher [0096]).
NOTE JVLC teaches mapping element between < and > using generic boolean expression. A generic boolean expression is a statement that can be evaluated to either true or false, using logical operators like AND, OR, and NOT, and can involve variables or constants. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention can reasonably conclude that query conditions combined by the generic boolean expression can obviously be logical AND operator.
However, to merely obviate such reasoning, Dettinger discloses combining query conditions into a query clause by using a logical AND operator ([0066] “conditions themselves may be "ANDed" together”, [0075]). NOTE Dettinger further explicitly discloses a query condition corresponding to each assigned field ([0015], [0017]).
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 teachings of JVLC to include logical AND operator as disclosed by Dettinger. Doing so would help interpret the conditions specified by the query and create a resolved query that includes the conditions (Dettinger [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement in simplifying the coding related to the database access and improving the development efficiency However, rewriting a query based on different query condition allows for a logical / mental refinement, wherein specifying the database access is a well-understood, common and conventional activity known in the technological field. The claims do not integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an improvement in a functionality of a computer. Rewriting a query and mapping query fields for a translation between database can be performed mentally or with an aid of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) recites "Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)."
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) further recites "iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC V. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);" Applicants' arguments appear to be arguing an improvement that comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer. The scale of data (e.g. the 'large' amount of data) being processed at high speeds are merely improvements achieved by implementing the abstract idea within a computing environment, and not the result of any improvement to the abstract idea itself. Here, the claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another field of technology, utilize a particular machine, or effect a particular physical transformation. Rather, we determine that nothing in the claims imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception.
With respect to the dependent claims 2-3, merely reciting applying some unspecified “reflection” technology (aka software module) fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claim 4, merely recites obtaining syntax tree, which allows for a logical processing of the query conditions and does not meaningful limit on the judicial exception and does not improve the technology or the functioning of the computer.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machines (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied on any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2 106.05(a) (c), (e) (b). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54- 55 ("Prong 2"). Second, the use of computer hardware and/or software components to optimize the processing of data may improve the abstract idea, but, in this context, is not a technological improvement. Appeal Br.5; see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363. 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 February 23, 2026