DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on August 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the pending claims recite a “specific technological architecture improves the manner in which computing systems process mixed workloads by identifying operations that can be translated into database queries, compiling those operations into executable database queries, causing execution by a database engine, and separately handling operations that cannot be translated into database queries,” and that the claims “directed to a specific software architecture including an operation evaluator, an engine interface, generation of a queue comprising translatable and non-translatable portions, compilation of executable database queries, execution of those queries by a database engine, and transmission of resulting datasets are directed to patent-eligible subject matter” (response 8/6/2026, lines 1-4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed operations are directed to organizing (e.g., generating a queue ..data processing operations), translating information (e.g., compiling the translatable data portion of the queue into a database query), and executing data processing operations as database queries (e.g. causing the database query to be executed), with the remaining operations performed outside the database engine. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea involving information processing and manipulation, rather than a particular technological improvement to computer or database technology. The additional recitation of library, operation evaluator, engine interface, queue, and database engine does not, by itself, avoid the abstraction. These elements primarily identify the components used to perform the claimed information-processing functions. Moreover, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The processor circuit, memory, computer program, library, operation evaluator, engine interface, and database engine are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform their ordinary functions of storing, processing, translating, executing, and transmitting information. The claimed execution of the database query and transmission of the resulting dataset merely apply the recited information processing concept using conventional computer components. These limitations can likewise be viewed as the implementation of the abstract information processing concept itself, rather than as additional technical elements that provide an inventive concept. The claim does not recite a particular technical improvement in query execution, such as reducing unnecessary data transfer between the application and database engine, avoiding execution of incompatible operations by the database engine, improving query execution efficiency, or providing a particular mechanism for hybrid execution. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong 2, and does not recite an inventive concept under step 2B.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “generate in a queue comprising a translatable portion and a non-translatable portion, wherein the translatable
portion comprises a first subset of data processing operations that are translatable into data queries and the non-translatable portion, generate a query result, and transmit a result dataset corresponding to the query result to an application configured to analyze the result dataset”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-8 a system or machine, claims 9-15 a method or a process, and claims 16-20 a computer readable storage medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to generating a queue of operations (e.g., splitting into translatable and non-translatable), compiling a portion of the queue into a database query, executing the query, and transmitting results.... These limitations involve data processing, data analysis and information organization, which can be characterized as mental processes and/or methods of organizing/ analyzing information (even if performed by a computer). There is no technical detail regarding how these steps are performed beyond generic computer or processor components. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as a “processor circuit,” “memory,” “library,” “operation evaluator,” “engine interface,” and interaction with a “database engine”. These elements are generic computer components and are recited at high level of generality without any specific technical implementation. The claim does not specify how the queue is structured (e.g., data structure details), how translation is performed (e.g., a specific algorithm), how execution improves database or system performance, or any other technical improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself. Therefore, the claim does not provide meaningful integration into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as generic processor and memory configured to perform routine data processing, as well as a “library,” an “evaluator,” and an “interface,” which are purely functional labels and does not include any unconventional techniques (e.g., specific algorithm, architecture, or transformation). These are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and are described functionally rather than structurally. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “import the library as the computer program under development is loaded by an application for developing programs” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “subsequent to user interaction with a user interface, invoke the operation evaluator to cause the data processing operations to be included in the queue and cause the translatable data portion of the queue to be compiled into a database query” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “enabling code to be referenced within the computer program under development to generate an expression tree comprising a database expression…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “an indication of a first data processing operation in the non-translatable portion of the queue further indicates the first data processing operation is dependent on a second data processing operation, and an indication of the second data processing operation is included in the translatable portion of the queue” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “a function of the first data processing operation not being translatable to an operator of a database query; or an argument of the first data processing operation not being translatable to an operand of a database query” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “identify a common indication… and map the common table indication to instances of the common indication in the one or more queues” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 8 recites “…utilize the engine interface to process a sequence of statements of a code block, the statements comprising the data processing operations” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 9 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to classifying operations (e.g., translatable and non-translatable)…, organizing them into queue portions of a queue, compiling a query..., and executing the query to return results. These limitations involve data analysis and data processing, as well as rules-based decision-making (e.g., translatable vs. not translatable), which can be characterized as mental processes (e.g., evaluation, classification, decision-making), and/or methods of organizing and analyzing information. There is no technical detail regarding how these steps are performed beyond generic computer components. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 9 recites additional elements such as a “library,” an “operation evaluator,” an “engine interface,” and a “database engine”. These elements are generic computer components. The claim further recites the steps that are functional in nature (e.g., placing, determining, compiling, executing, and transmitting), rather than described a technical effect. The claim does not recite any improvement to databases, compilers, or execution engines, nor does it include any non-conventional architecture, data structures, or a specific technological process, or any particular manner in which the queue is structured or processed beyond functional labeling. Instead, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself. Therefore, the claim does not provide meaningful integration into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 9 recites additional elements such as generic data processing, and does not include any unconventional techniques (e.g., specific algorithm, architecture, or transformation). These are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and are described functionally rather than structurally. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Claim 16 is rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 9. Claims 10-15 and 17-20 are similar analysis of claims 2-8 and do not include additional elements that 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 element in claims 10-15 and 17-20 represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas. Each additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in a manner that overcomes the abstract idea issues above.
Regarding claim 1, similar claim 9 and claim 16, Kadiyala/Brossard combination fails to disclose or suggest “generate, by the operation evaluator, a queue comprising a translatable portion and a non-translatable portion, wherein the translatable portion comprises a first subset of data processing operations that are translatable into data queries executable by a data base engine, and the non-translatable portion comprises a second subset of data processing operations that are not translatable into data queries and are executable outside of the database engine..includes identify a common indication that occurs more than a predetermined number of times; generate a common table indication corresponding to the common indication; and map the common table indication to instances of the common indication in the one or more queues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights