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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is issued in response to Application filed August 23, 2024.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble states “The method of claim 16”; however, the claim should be a computer-readable media claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 3, 13, and 19 state “the determining is further based on …”; however, it is unclear which “determining” step is being reference from Independent claim 1 because Claim 1 contains multiple “determining” steps.
Claims 13 and 19 contain similar issues as above and are rejected under the same rationale based upon their dependence of their corresponding Independent claims (i.e., claim 12 and claim 18; respectively).
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Independent claim 12 recites “One or more instances of computer-readable media”; however, the specification of the instant application discusses a “computer-readable media drive” and data stored on a computer-readable medium” (par [0024] of instant application); but fails to indicate what constitutes a computer-readable media. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer-readable media” encompasses non-statutory subject matter that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and do not cure the deficiencies; and thus are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-15, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terlecki (U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0427767).
Regarding Claim 1, Terlecki discloses a method in a computing system for searching a corpus having attributes and comprising items each in turn comprising values for attributes among the attributes of the corpus, the method comprising:
receiving a query string (par [0056], Terlecki – query processing system receives a query);
identifying concepts represented in the received query string (par [0056-0057], Terlecki – parse the query’s string to recognize commands and keywords);
accessing an ordered series of query strategy stages (par [0067], [0069], Terlecki – generating a plan that includes multiple planning stages… par [0095], Terlecki – stages are sequentially ordered in the same order of the query);
for each of the query strategy stages of the ordered series, beginning with a first strategy stage of the ordered series, until a strategy stage of the ordered series is selected: accessing a set of attributes among the corpus's attributes specified by the query strategy stage (par [0073-0074], Terlecki);
performing a pre-search to determine an extent to which concepts among the identified concepts are represented among the values of the attributes of the accessed set (par [0079], [0081], Terlecki – PathField and PathGet);
based on the determined extent, determining whether the query strategy stage is satisfied (par [0078-0084], Terlecki);
where the query strategy stage is determined to be satisfied, selecting the query strategy stage (par [0081], [0083-0084], Terlecki – select the best plan based on the conditions of the stages); and
performing a search to generate a search result identifying items of the corpus having values of at least a portion of the attributes of the accessed set that each represent at least one of the identified concepts (par [0085], Terlecki – system executes the selected plan to obtain query results by executing plan stages).
Regarding Claim 2, Terlecki discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising causing the generated search result to be displayed (par [0086], Terlecki – system configured to display the results of the query in a GUI).
Regarding Claim 3, Terlecki discloses the method of claim 1 wherein, for each of the query strategy stages of the ordered series, the determining is further based on a stage satisfaction criterion of the query strategy stage ().
Regarding Claim 4, Terlecki discloses the method of claim 1 wherein, for each of the query strategy stages of the ordered series, the pre-search is performed using a query strategy graph constructed based upon the query strategy stage and an index (par [0067], [0074], Terlecki – generate the execution plan as a tree comprising nodes where the nodes represent stages of the plan and a stage may be represented by an index node).
Regarding Claim 5, Terlecki discloses the method of claim 4 wherein the search is performed using a query strategy graph that is based on the query strategy graph constructed for the selected query strategy stage (par [0067], [0074], Terlecki – generate the execution plan as a tree comprising nodes where the nodes represent stages of the plan).
Claims 12-15 contain similar subject matter as claims 1 and 3-5 above; and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 18-21 contain similar subject matter as claims 1 and 3-5 above; and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 16-17, and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: accessing information related to the retrieved query string; based at least in part on the accessed information, selecting one of a plurality of searching profiles; and selecting an ordered series of query strategy stages that corresponds to the selected searching profile, wherein the accessed ordered series of query strategy stages is the selected ordered series of query strategy stages.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELCIE L DAYE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3891. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00pm. 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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).
Chelcie Daye
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
September 22, 2025
/CHELCIE L DAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161