DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to communication filed July 31, 2025. Claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14 are currently amended. Claims 12 and 15-16 are canceled. Claims 17-23 are new.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2024 and 4/18/2025 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 6-9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6 and 21 recite: parsing the data query statement to obtain the data object corresponding to each expression field and the data attribute of the data object; and searching the object data model based on the data object corresponding to each expression field and the data attribute of the data object, wherein the object data model is constructed based on a first data structure, and the first data structure is a tree structure representing a mapping relationship between a data object and a data attribute. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally parse a data query statement and search an object data model using observation and evaluation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of: displaying a data query statement inputted by a user, wherein the data query statement comprises at least one expression field, and the expression field comprises a first object field and a second object field that are arranged in sequence, the first object field representing a data object, and the second object field representing a data attribute of the data object, where the expression field is used to define a data query dimension of a target business process, and the query statement is used to represent a target query dimension formed by at least one data query dimension; and responding to the data query statement to obtain target data, wherein the target data is a result of querying business node data of the target business process based on the target query dimension; acquiring an object data model, wherein the object data model is used to store data of business nodes of the target business process; and inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the processor and a memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “displaying a data query statement”, “responding to the data query statement”, acquiring an object data model” and “inputting the data query statement” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, all of which are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, the recitation of a processor and memory to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 7 and 22 recite: performing syntax parsing on the data query statement to construct an abstract syntax tree corresponding to the data query statement; performing splitting and grouping aggregation on the abstract syntax tree to generate at least one homogeneous syntax tree, wherein the homogeneous syntax tree corresponds to at least one target data object and at least two attributes of the target data object; and recombining the at least one homogeneous syntax tree into a target syntax tree, wherein the target syntax tree comprises the data object corresponding to each expression field and the data attribute of the data object. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with the aid of pen and paper) perform syntax pasting to construct an abstract syntax tree, performing splitting and grouping aggregation on the abstract syntax tree to generate at least one homogeneous syntax tree, and recombining the at least one homogeneous syntax tree into a target syntax tree.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor (claim 21) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 8 and 23 recite the additional element: calling a corresponding database statement based on the target syntax tree, and searching the object data model to obtain the target data. This limitation represents mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the processor (claim 22) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “calling… to obtain the target data” is recited at a high level of generality. These element amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 9 recites: splitting the abstract syntax tree into at least one syntax sub-tree based on each expression field in the data query statement; and performing grouping aggregation on the at least one syntax sub-tree based on a same data object in the at least one syntax sub-tree, to generate at least one homogeneous syntax tree. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (with the aid of pen and paper) split the abstract syntax tree into at least one syntax sub-tree, and perform grouping aggregation on the at least one syntax sub-tree to generate at least one homogeneous syntax tree.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marinoiu et al. (US 9396240 B2) (‘Marinoiu’).
With respect to claim 1, Marinoiu teaches a data query method, comprising:
displaying a data query statement inputted by a user, wherein the data query statement comprises at least one expression field (302 and 304), and the expression field comprises a first object field and a second object field that are arranged in sequence, the first object field representing a data object (i.e. customer), and the second object field representing a data attribute of the data object (i.e. age), where the expression field is used to define a data query dimension of a target business process, and the query statement is used to represent a target query dimension formed by at least one data query dimension (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39-58; col. 7 lines 34-45); and
responding to the data query statement to obtain target data, wherein the target data is a result of querying business node data of the target business process based on the target query dimension (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39 – col. 6 line 11; col. 7 lines 34-45; col. 13 lines 4-5).
With respect to claims 4 and 19, Marinoiu teaches wherein the data query statement further comprises a logical connection field, and the logical connection field (i.e. joins or inter-table relationships) represents an intersection operation or a union operation of the data query dimension corresponding to the expression field (col. 5 line 59 – col. 6 line 12; col. 13 line 55 – col. 14 line 5).
With respect to claim 11, Marinoiu teaches wherein after the target data is obtained, the method further comprises: performing visualization rendering based on the target data, and displaying a data chart, wherein the data chart is used to display a target data object corresponding to the target data and a target data attribute corresponding to the target data object (Fig. 3, col. 7 lines 34-45).
With respect to claim 13, Marinoiu teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a processor and a memory communicatively connected to the processor (Fig. 4);
the memory stores computer-execution instructions; and
when the processor executes the computer-execution instructions stored in the memory, the processor is enabled to:
display a data query statement inputted by a user, wherein the data query statement comprises at least one expression field, and the expression field comprises a first object field and a second object field that are arranged in sequence, the first object field representing a data object (i.e. customer), and the second object field representing a data attribute of the data object (i.e. age), where the expression field is used to define a data query dimension of a target business process, and the query statement is used to represent a target query dimension formed by at least one data query dimension (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39-58; col. 7 lines 34-45); and
respond to the data query statement to obtain target data, wherein the target data is a result of querying business node data of the target business process based on the target query dimension (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39 – col. 6 line 11; col. 7 lines 34-45; col. 13 lines 4-5).
With respect to claim 14, Marinoiu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer-execution instructions, and when a processor executes the computer-execution instructions (col. 14 lines 15-35), the following operations are implemented:
displaying a data query statement inputted by a user, wherein the data query statement comprises at least one expression field (302 or 304), and the expression field comprises a first object field and a second object field that are arranged in sequence, the first object field representing a data object (i.e. customer), and the second object field representing a data attribute of the data object (i.e. age), where the expression field is used to define a data query dimension of a target business process, and the query statement is used to represent a target query dimension formed by at least one data query dimension(Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39-58; col. 7 lines 34-45); and
responding to the data query statement to obtain target data, wherein the target data is a result of querying business node data of the target business process based on the target query dimension (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39 – col. 6 line 11; col. 7 lines 34-45; col. 13 lines 4-5).
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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinoiu et al. (US 9396240 B2) (‘Marinoiu’) in view of Cuddihy et al. (US 10691713 B2) (‘Cuddihy’).
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Marinoiu teaches wherein the second object field comprises an attribute type field where the attribute type field represents a type of the data attribute (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39-58).
Marinoiu does not explicitly teach an attribute value field, the attribute value field represents an attribute value of the data attribute of a corresponding type, and the attribute type field is connected to the attribute value field through a second connection field.
Cuddihy teaches an attribute value field, the attribute value field represents an attribute value of the data attribute of a corresponding type, and the attribute type field is connected to the attribute value field through a second connection field (Fig. 8; col. 7 lines 6-12 and lines 28-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Marinoiu to have an attribute value field as taught by Cuddihy to define constraints that are to be applied to data attributes and used by the tool to automatically generate a search query based on user interactions (Cuddihy, abstract, col. 2 lines 35-51).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinoiu et al. (US 9396240 B2) (‘Marinoiu’) in view of Kulkarni (US 2019/0370369 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 18, Marinoiu teaches wherein the first object field is connected to the second object field through a first connection field, and the displaying the data query statement inputted by the user comprises: receiving and displaying a first object field inputted by the user (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 39-58; col. 7 lines 34-45).
Marinoiu does not explicitly teach in response to a first connection field inputted by the user, displaying at least one second object field corresponding to the first connection field; and in response to a selection instruction inputted by the user, displaying a target second object field corresponding to the first connection field.
Kulkarni teaches receiving and displaying a first object field inputted by the user (Figs. 5A and 5C, paragraphs 63 and 70);
in response to a first connection field inputted by the user, displaying at least one second object field corresponding to the first connection field (Figs. 5B and 5C, paragraphs 63 and 71); and
in response to a selection instruction inputted by the user, displaying a target second object field corresponding to the first connection field (Figs. 5B and 5C, paragraphs 63 and 71-72).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Marinoiu to display second object fields based on first object fields as taught by Kulkarni to ensure that the input types, sequence, and syntax of the constructed query matches the defined requirements of the data source/entity associated with a particular query (Kulkarni, paragraphs 36 and 63).
Claims 5, 6, 10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinoiu et al. (US 9396240 B2) (‘Marinoiu’) in view of Lev et al. (US 2018/0150557 A1) (‘Lev’).
With respect to claims 5 and 20, Marinoiu teaches wherein the responding to the data query statement to obtain the target data comprises using a data model.
Marinoiu does not explicitly teach acquiring an object data model, wherein the object data model is used to store data of business nodes of the target business process; and inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data.
Lev teaches acquiring an object data model, wherein the object data model is used to store data of business nodes of the target business process (Figs. 1A and 1B; paragraphs 167-169); and
inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data (paragraphs 121-122, 181, 216, and 280).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Marinoiu to use an object data model to process queries as taught by Lev because fast and efficient access of the hierarchical object model provides improved computational efficiency for example, in terms of reduced processing time (Lev, paragraph 128).
With respect to claims 6 and 21, Marinoiu in view of Lev teaches wherein the inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data comprises:
parsing the data query statement to obtain the data object corresponding to each expression field and the data attribute of the data object (Lev, paragraphs 98-99 and 247-248); and
searching the object data model based on the data object corresponding to each expression field and the data attribute of the data object, to obtain the target data, wherein the object data model is constructed based on a first data structure, and the first data structure is a tree structure representing a mapping relationship between a data object and a data attribute (Lev, Figs. 1A and 1B, paragraphs 181-182, 216-217, 280, and 347).
With respect to claim 10, Marinoiu in view of Lev teaches wherein before inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data, the method further comprises:
determining a data source based on the data query statement, wherein the data source is business node data in at least one preprocessing dimension (Marinoiu, col. 2 lines 23-29; Lev, paragraphs 73, 82, 131, and 180); and
configuring the object data model based on the data source to obtain a target object data model, wherein the target object data model is used to store the data source, wherein the preprocessing dimension comprises at least one of the following: data time, a data business type (Marinoiu, col. 7 lines 23-33; Lev, Figs. 1A and 1B; paragraphs 102, 118, and 167-169); and
the inputting the data query statement into the object data model to obtain the target data comprises: inputting the data query statement into the target object data model to obtain the target data (Lev, paragraphs 121-122, 181, 216, and 280).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights