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 Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claim 6 was canceled. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
In contrast, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, and Shwartz fails to teach or suggest each and every element recited in claim 1. For example, as agreed during the interview, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, and Shwartz fails to disclose "mapping a first data field of the structured representation to a first column name of a first table of a relational database, the mapping based on a similarity metric between an embedded representation of the first column name and an embedded representation of the first data field derived from the query input, the similarity metric based on an overlap of the embedded representation of the first column name and the embedded representation of the first data field, the relational database characterized by a database schema," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 argument with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-21 has been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. U.S. Patent (2024/0404702; hereinafter: Bell) in view of Warner et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0165561; hereinafter: Warner) and further in view of Tiwari et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0060537; hereinafter: Tiwari) and further in view of Shwartz U.S. Patent (5,812,840; hereinafter: Shwartz)
Claims 1, 9, and 17
As to claims 1, 9, and 17, Bell discloses a system for retrieving data from at least one database based on a query input related to a clinical trial, the system comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph[0182], the reference describes using a processor.); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (paragraph[0182], the reference describes using a memory and processor executing instructions.):
processing a received query input related to a clinical trial using a pre-trained language model neural network, the neural network configured to generate data indicative of a structured representation of the query input (paragraph[0057], the reference describes using trained modeled data to create a query structure.), the structured representation comprising a plurality of data fields and a plurality of corresponding data values (paragraph[0135], paragraph[0135]-paragraph[0136], the reference shows the query structure created by the system.);
Bell does not appear to explicitly disclose mapping a first data field of the structured representation to a first column name of a first table of a relational database, the mapping based on a similarity metric between an embedded representation of the first column name and an embedded representation of the first data field derived from the query input, the similarity metric based on an overlap of the embedded representation of the first column name and the embedded representation of the first data field, the relational database characterized by a database schema;
mapping a second data field of the structured representation to a second column name of a second table of the relational database; and
generating a database query based on (i) the database schema, (ii) the first column name, (iii) the second column name, (iv) the data values associated with the first data field, and (v) the data values associated with the second data field, wherein the database query specifies an operation for joining data represented in the data column associated with the first column name with data represented in the data column associated with the second column name.
However, Warner discloses mapping a first data field of the structured representation to a first column name of a first table of a relational database, the mapping based on a similarity metric between an embedded representation of the first column name and an embedded representation of the first data field derived from the query input, the similarity metric based on an overlap of the embedded representation of the first column name and the embedded representation of the first data field, the relational database characterized by a database schema (paragraph[0070]-paragraph[0071], the reference describes measuring selected columns similarity metrics. The Examiner interprets a user is able to select a first column name based on query input. The system creates an embedding representation as describes in paragraph[0070].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner to determine similarity scores of column data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner to efficiently detect similar and identical data structures within data instances (Warner: paragraph[0013]).
The combination of Bell and Warner do not appear to explicitly disclose mapping a second data field of the structured representation to a second column name of a second table of the relational database; and
generating a database query based on (i) the database schema, (ii) the first column name, (iii) the second column name, (iv) the data values associated with the first data field, and (v) the data values associated with the second data field, wherein the database query specifies an operation for joining data represented in the data column associated with the first column name with data represented in the data column associated with the second column name.
However, Tiwari discloses mapping a first data field of the structured representation to a first column name of a first table of a relational database, the relational database characterized by a database schema (paragraph[0118]-paragraph[0121], the reference describes mapping data column names.);
mapping a second data field of the structured representation to a second column name of a second table of the relational database(paragraph[0121], the reference describes mapping a first column to a second column (i.e., a second column name, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner and Tiwari to map columns which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner and Tiwari to efficiently provide merging data sets that provide these capabilities in a user interface that does not require programming (Tiwari: paragraph[0010]).
The combination of Bell, Warner, and Tiwari do not appear to explicitly disclose generating a database query based on (i) the database schema, (ii) the first column name, (iii) the second column name, (iv) the data values associated with the first data field, and (v) the data values associated with the second data field, wherein the database query specifies an operation for joining data represented in the data column associated with the first column name with data represented in the data column associated with the second column name.
However, Shwartz discloses generating a database query based on (i) the database schema, (ii) the first column name, (iii) the second column name, (iv) the data values associated with the first data field, and (v) the data values associated with the second data field, wherein the database query specifies an operation for joining data represented in the data column associated with the first column name with data represented in the data column associated with the second column name (column 33, lines 55-65, the reference describes creating a query. The query has column names and Where clauses to join the column data together.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz to generate join queries using database elements which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz to efficiently provide a querying tool which will guide a user to interactively create syntactically and semantically correct queries (Shwartz: column 1, lines 9-12).
Claims 2, 10, and 18
As to claims 2, 10, and 18, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, and Shwartz further disclose comprising:
executing the generated database query, wherein an output of the executed query is a resulting data table (column 17, lines 54-65, the reference describes running the query and showing the tables on an interface.);
displaying, on a user interface, a visual representation of the resulting data table(column 17, lines 54-65, the reference describes running the query and showing the tables on an interface.).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
As to claims 2, 10, and 18, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, and Shwartz further disclose wherein the relational database comprises at least one calculated table, the calculated table comprising data from at least two tables of the relational database (Figure 2, paragraph[0042], the reference describes merging tables with height and weight (i.e., calculated table, as claimed).).
Claims 7 and 15
As to claims 7 and 15, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, and Tiwari further disclose wherein at least one column of at least one table of the relational database is characterized by a corresponding one alternative column name, the alternative column name different from the column name (paragraph[0036], the reference describes showing the unmatched (alternative column names, as claimed).).
Claim 21
As to claim 21, the combination of Bell, Tiwari, Warner, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Warner further disclose wherein: the relational database comprises a calculated table that is determined based on one or more rules associated with received domain expertise and that comprises at least two tables of the relational database(paragraph[0070]-paragraph[0071], the reference describes measuring selected columns similarity metrics.); and
the mapping of the first data field derived from the query input to the first column name is further based on the calculated table (paragraph[0085], the reference describes mapping the data to categories.).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. U.S. Patent (2024/0404702; hereinafter: Bell) in view of Warner et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0165561; hereinafter: Warner) and further in view of Tiwari et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0060537; hereinafter: Tiwari) and further in view of Shwartz U.S. Patent (5,812,840; hereinafter: Shwartz) and further in view of He et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0411740; hereinafter: He)
Claims 3, 11, and 19
As to claims 3, 11, and 19, the combination of Bell, Warner, Tiwari, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the further comprising generating executable code by a pre-trained language model neural network for analyzing the resulting data table.
However, He discloses generating executable code by a pre-trained language model neural network for analyzing the resulting data table (paragraph[0019], the reference describes using the trained model to determine writing a program to convert and analyze a table.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and He to generate network models which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and He to efficiently organize data into relational data tables (He: paragraph[001]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. U.S. Patent (2024/0404702; hereinafter: Bell) in view of Warner et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0165561; hereinafter: Warner) and further in view of Tiwari et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0060537; hereinafter: Tiwari) and further in view of Shwartz U.S. Patent (5,812,840; hereinafter: Shwartz) and further in view of Brown et al. U.S. Patent (6,466,929; hereinafter: Brown)
Claims 5 and 13
As to claims 5 and 13, the combination of Bell, Warner, Tiwari, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Shwartz further disclose wherein the calculated table is determined based on one or more rules associated with received domain expertise.
However, Brown discloses wherein the calculated table is determined based on one or more rules associated with received domain expertise (column 7, 19-39, the reference describes rules made by users to determine calculations of data from tables.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and Brown to generate rules for table calculations which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and Brown to efficiently provide a data exploration and analysis system to quickly discover implicit relationships in data (Brown: Column 2, lines 50-55).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. U.S. Patent (2024/0404702; hereinafter: Bell) in view of Warner et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0165561; hereinafter: Warner) and further in view of Tiwari et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0060537; hereinafter: Tiwari) and further in view of Shwartz U.S. Patent (5,812,840; hereinafter: Shwartz) and further in view of Pugh et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0012656; hereinafter: Pugh)
Claims 8 and 16
As to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Bell, Warner, Tiwari, and Shwartz discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose comprising receiving feedback indicative of an accuracy of the mapping of the first data field to the first column name and updating at least one alternative column name of a column of a table of the relational database.
However, Pugh discloses comprising receiving feedback indicative of an accuracy of the mapping of the first data field to the first column name (paragraph[0347], the reference describes the user giving feed based on the mapping of columns.)
and updating at least one alternative column name of a column of a table of the relational database (paragraph[0460], the reference describes a user changing the column names.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and Pugh to provide feedback based on column name mapping which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bell with the teachings of Warner, Tiwari, Shwartz, and Pugh to efficiently prepare and curate data for use by a data visualization application (Pugh: paragraph[0003]).
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights