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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on 1/8/2026. Claims 1-20 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 and 25-40 are pending. Applicants’ arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered in light of the instant amendment and are persuasive, as they relate to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, after further search and consideration, Examiner has found additional prior art, as will be discussed below. Accordingly, this action has been made NON-FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,829. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variant of each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,130,829
Claim 21:
A method comprising:
obtaining a first user input via a first user interface, wherein at least a portion of a first query is defined based on the first user input;
identifying a set of data for execution of the first query based on the first user input, the first query expressed in a first query language format and the set of data expressed in a second query language format that is different from the first query language format;
determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to at least a portion of a second query based on mapping data;
obtaining first query results based on executing the second query;
executing the second query on the set of data identified for execution of the first query based on determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to the at least a portion of the second query; and
causing display of query results via a second user interface;
modifying the first query results based on the mapping data to obtain second query results; and
causing display of the second query results via the second user interface
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
obtaining a user input via a first visualization of a user interface, wherein the user input defines a first field-value pair for execution of a query, wherein the first field-value pair associates a first field and a first field value;
identifying a set of data for execution of the query based at least in part on the user input;
determining the first field is mapped to a second field based on mapping data, wherein a second field-value pair associates the second field and the first field value;
generating a modified query using the query and the second field-value pair based at least in part on determining the first field is mapped to the second field;
executing the modified query on the set of data using the second field-value pair to generate query results; and
causing display of the query results via a second visualization of the user interface based at least in part on the first field.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the similar limitations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the additional elements "a first visualization of a user interface; wherein the first field-value pair associates a first field and a first field value; wherein a second field-value pair associates the second field and the first field value; generating a modified query using the query and the second field-value pair based at least in part on determining the first field is mapped to the second field" of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,829 to arrive at the claims 21-40 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 (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 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) 21-23 and 25-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al (US 20230072930 A1) in view of Meijer et al (US 20070038985 A1).
As to claims 21, 39, and 40, Shah teaches A method comprising:
obtaining a first user input via a first user interface, wherein at least a portion of a first query is defined based on the first user input (Shah discloses a database query which is received and executed in [0038]);
identifying a set of data for execution of the first query based on the first user input, the first query expressed in a first query language format and the set of data expressed in a second query language format that is different from the first query language format (Shah discloses the first database and the second database stored shared synchronized records. The queries are translated to the database query language of the target database service. See [0018], [0024], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0063], [0064]);
determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to at least a portion of a second query (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]);
executing the second query on the set of data identified for execution of the first query based on determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to the at least a portion of the second query (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]);
obtaining first query results based on executing the second query (Shah discloses the query results from either executing a split query at 407 or a non-split query at 411 are collected and processed. See [0039]-[0044]);
modifying the first query results based on the mapping data to obtain second query results (Shah discloses The query results from the execution of the first component query by one database service are used to complete the second component query for execution by the second database service. See [0021]); and
causing display of the second query results via a second user interface (Shah discloses the results from the execution may be streamed as batch results and the collected batch results are integrated. See [0043]).
Shah fails to teach obtaining mapping data identifying a relationship between at least a first field of the first query language format and a second field of the second query language format.
However, Meijer teaches obtaining mapping data identifying a relationship between at least a first field of the first query language format and a second field of the second query language format (Meijer discloses receives the tokens or collection of tokens and expands or translates them from the first source program language to corresponding elements in a second target language. To facilitate such translation or expansion, the translation component 120 can interact with and be guided by map 130. Map 130 provides a map or mapping between the syntax, operations, and names of the first language and the syntax, operations and names of the second language. The map 130 can include a record of not only base elements that are common to programming languages but also context or implementation specific information such as field, variable and/or table names. See [0026] - [0031]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the teachings of Shah to incorporate the Syntactic Program Language Translation as taught by Meijer for the purpose of improving query performance.
As to claim 22, Meijer teaches the mapping data indicates a relationship between the first query language format and the second query language format, wherein the first query corresponds to the first query language format, and wherein the second query corresponds to the second query language format (Meijer discloses receives the tokens or collection of tokens and expands or translates them from the first source program language to corresponding elements in a second target language. To facilitate such translation or expansion, the translation component 120 can interact with and be guided by map 130. Map 130 provides a map or mapping between the syntax, operations, and names of the first language and the syntax, operations and names of the second language. The map 130 can include a record of not only base elements that are common to programming languages but also context or implementation specific information such as field, variable and/or table names. See [0026] - [0031]).
As to claim 23, Meijer teaches the mapping data indicates a relationship between the first query language format and the second query language format, wherein the first query and the second query results correspond to the first query language format, and wherein the second query and the set of data correspond to the second query language format (Meijer discloses receives the tokens or collection of tokens and expands or translates them from the first source program language to corresponding elements in a second target language. To facilitate such translation or expansion, the translation component 120 can interact with and be guided by map 130. Map 130 provides a map or mapping between the syntax, operations, and names of the first language and the syntax, operations and names of the second language. The map 130 can include a record of not only base elements that are common to programming languages but also context or implementation specific information such as field, variable and/or table names. See [0026] - [0031]).
As to claim 25, Shah teaches determining that the first query results and the first query correspond to different query languages; and modifying the first query results to obtain the second query results based on determining that the first query results and the first query correspond to different query language formats (Shah discloses the first database and the second database stored shared synchronized records. The queries are translated to the database query language of the target database service. See [0018], [0024], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0063], [0064]) (Shah discloses The query results from the execution of the first component query by one database service are used to complete the second component query for execution by the second database service. See [0021]).
As to claim 26, Shah teaches determining that the set of data and the first query correspond to different query language formats; and obtaining the second query based on determining that the set of data and the first query correspond to different query language formats (Shah discloses the first database and the second database stored shared synchronized records. The queries are translated to the database query language of the target database service. See [0018], [0024], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0063], [0064]) (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 27, Shah teaches the first query defines a query operation in a first manner, and wherein the second query defines the query operation in a second manner (Shah discloses the first database and the second database stored shared synchronized records. The queries are translated to the database query language of the target database service. See [0018], [0024], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0063], [0064]).
As to claim 28, Shah teaches the at least a portion of the first query comprises one or more of a first field, a first command, a first function, a first argument, or a first clause, and wherein the at least a portion of the second query comprises one or more of a second field, a second command, a second function, a second argument, or a second clause (Shah discloses query engine 203 identifies the column-store component and row-store component of a database query and splits the two. The column-store component can correspond to a WHERE or JOIN clause which is column-oriented. In contrast to the column-store component, the row-store component of the database query can correspond to a SELECT clause that is row-oriented. See [0022]).
As to claim 29, Shah teaches obtaining the second query based on determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to the at least a portion of the second query (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 30, Shah teaches modifying the first query to obtain the second query based on determining that the at least a portion of the first query is mapped to the at least a portion of the second query (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 31, Shah teaches the first query comprises a first field-value pair, wherein the second query comprises a second field-value pair, wherein the first field-value pair comprises a first field and a first field value, and wherein the second field-value pair comprises a second field and the first field value (Shah discloses the database query is split into component queries. For example, a column-store component query and a row-store component query are generated from the database query. In some embodiments, the result values from executing a first component query are used to complete the generation of the second component query. See [0039]).
As to claim 32, Shah teaches causing display of the second query results comprises causing display of the second query results in response to obtaining the first user input (Shah discloses the results from the execution may be streamed as batch results and the collected batch results are integrated. See [0043]).
As to claim 33, Shah teaches at least a portion of a third query is mapped to the at least a portion of the second query based on mapping data (Shah discloses the database query is split into component queries (i.e. first query, second query, third query, etc.). The execution of the component queries is pipelined. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 34, Meijer teaches obtaining a second user input; and defining the mapping data based on the second user input (Meijer discloses receives the tokens or collection of tokens and expands or translates them from the first source program language to corresponding elements in a second target language. To facilitate such translation or expansion, the translation component 120 can interact with and be guided by map 130. Map 130 provides a map or mapping between the syntax, operations, and names of the first language and the syntax, operations and names of the second language. The map 130 can include a record of not only base elements that are common to programming languages but also context or implementation specific information such as field, variable and/or table names. See [0026] - [0031]).
As to claim 35, Shah teaches the second query comprises at least a portion of the first query (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 36, Shah teaches the first user input comprises a request to execute the first query on the set of data (Shah discloses the query engine further analyzes the database query to determine which of the two database services the query should be routed to for processing. See [0039]-[0044]).
As to claim 37, Shah teaches obtaining a second user input via a third user interface, wherein at least a portion of a third query is defined based on the second user input; and causing display of an alert via a fourth user interface based on the (Shah discloses the first database and the second database stored shared synchronized records. The queries are translated to the database query language of the target database service. Multiple user interfaces are a design choice and would have been obvious to implement different interfaces to execute/alert different aspects of Shah. See [0018], [0024], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0063], [0064]).
As to claim 38, Meijer teaches generating the mapping data using a machine learning model (Meijer discloses translation component 120 could utilize artificial intelligence, machine learning or like mechanisms to facilitate expansion or translation of code. See [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-23 and 25-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 1/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23 and 25-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shah et al (US 20230072930 A1) in view of Meijer et al (US 20070038985 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED M BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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 at 5712724080. 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.
/JARED M BIBBEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161