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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9-10, and 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, "to translate user question to SQL" should be corrected to read --to translate the user question to SQL--. Claims 9 and 13 contain a similar informality and should be similarly corrected.
In Claim 11, “non-transitory computer program product comprising instruction” should be corrected to read -- non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions--.
The preambles of dependent claims 12-14 recite "The non-transitory computer program product 11” and should be corrected to read --The non-transitory computer program product of claim 11--.
The remaining further dependent claim inherits the minor informalities of its parent claim, and thus, is also objected to due to minor informalities by virtue of its dependency.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1, Line 9 recites "an LLM" without a definite article or referential modifier when the term LLM was introduced earlier in the preamble. Thus, it is unclear whether "an LLM" should refer back to the earlier instance of --the LLM-- or represents an additional LLM (e.g., --a second LLM--). For claim interpretation purposes in the interest of compact prosecution, "an LLM" will be interpreted as --the LLM--. Also Claim 1, Line 11 recites "the modified data schema." This limitation lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what prior limitation is being referenced. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, the removing step will be construed to have an appended statement --to produced a modified data schema for the database--. Independent claims 6 and 11 contain similar instances of indefinite claim language, and thus, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) under similar rationale.
Since Claim 5 depends upon itself, "The method," "the SQL," and "the user question" all lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what prior limitation is being referenced. For claim construction, claim 5 will be construed as depending upon claim 4.
In Claim 11, Line 2, “the computer” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what prior limitation is being referenced. For claim construction, “the computer” will be construed as –a computer--.
Claim 14 lacks antecedent basis for the term "the SQL" and it is unclear what prior limitation is being referenced. For claim construction, claim 14 will be construed as depending upon claim 13.
The dependent claims inherit and fail to resolve the indefiniteness issues of their respective parent claims, and thus, have also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends upon itself. Accordingly, claim 5 fails to contain a claim previously set forth and fails to specify a further limitation of a preceding such that claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11-14 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 these claims are directed towards “non-transitory computer program product comprising instruction.” Without a clear and unmistakable definition or disavowal of scope of this term in the specification, the ordinary and customary meaning of this term includes a program per se. A program per se does not fall within the four statutory categories. Accordingly, claims 11-14 are not directed towards patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards a patent ineligible abstract idea under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Independent Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims regard a process that, as drafted under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components and high-level use of a generic LLM.
In regards to the process the independent claims, the claimed functionality could be practiced as a mental process in the following manner:
determining,
determining, (a user could mentally associate and write down mappings between categories and database entries (e.g., 10 in a certain column refers to the number of a car make/model sold));
receiving, (a human could read or listen to a question and mentally evaluate its meaning);
determining, (a human can manually and mentally evaluate data for a categorical match of data to a query (e.g., returning to the previous example a question about car sales in March would lead a human to mentally look up such a category via mental evaluation while not considering motorcycle sales for that moth or car sales outside of that range);
removing, (a human can mentally ignore data entries irrelevant to the query or strike through such entries in a data table on paper such as the motorcycle sales in March) ;
using, by the computer, the modified data schema for the database (a human can refer to the isolated data base entries and look up the pertinent answer such as car sales in March); and
transmitting,
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Outside of the identified abstract idea, the claimed invention only recites computer components (i.e., computer, processor, programs, data structures) which amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an otherwise abstract idea using generic computer components and a passing mention performing certain steps otherwise practically performed by a human “using” or “with” a g generic/high level LLM that amounts to mere machine automation of a human learning process that does not involve a particular trained LLM or model invented/improved by Applicant.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional generic computer components are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). As for evidence that the claimed generic LLM is well-known, routine, and conventional activity that does not direct patent ineligible subject matter to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Applicant's own admission by citing publicly available LLMs such as ChatGPT or Claude (Paragraph 0072) as well as the statement that "companies have started using LLMs" with large datasets to answer questions (Paragraph 0003) or the explanation in Browder, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2026/0147792 A1) LLMs used are publicly available and widely used products (Paragraph 0031). See also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
Thus, independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are not directed towards patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The remaining dependent claims fail to add patent eligible subject matter to their respective parent claims:
Claims 2 and 7 regard narrowed categorization where a human can look at a data table and make arrangements/sorting operations based upon categories along with the high-level use of a generic LLM addressed in the rejections of the independent claims.
Claims 3, 8, and 12, narrow category indicators/information that are capable of being read and understood mentally by a human.
Claims 4, 9, and 13 regard a translation operation between natural language/text and SQL that can be performed using pen and paper by a human with knowledge of such language or though mental consideration of a reference table.
Claims 5, 10, and 14 regard a human manually annotating a SQL to indicate a filter (e.g., March) along with the high-level use of a generic LLM addressed in the rejections of the independent claims.
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)(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 1-3, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Browder, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2026/0147792 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Browder discloses:
A method for an improved text to structured query language (SQL) for use with a large language model (LLM), the method comprising:
determining, by a computer (see use of a computer/processor in paragraphs 0022-0023; note that further instances of the “by the computer” limitation in the claim are also addressed by this citation), a plurality of categories of possible questions for a database that is to be used with the LLM (Paragraph 0029 -"data categorizations that classify and organize data into specific, predefined groups or categories" wherein such categories are "based on the nature of the query"; see also Paragraphs 0020 (describing data from a database) and 0068-0070);
determining, by the computer, a mapping between each data element in the database and one or more of the plurality of categories by the LLM (constraint machine-learning model learns and makes relationships/mappings between classifications such as categories associated with an input query (see also discussion of descriptors, tags, tokens, etc.) and data outputs from the database wherein this model includes a "large language model", Paragraphs 0029 and 0068);
receiving, by the computer, a user question (user input in the form of a query, Paragraphs 0046, 0062, and 0100; see prompt box 216h in Fig. 2 for entry of a question);
determining, by the computer, a match level for the user question to each of the plurality of categories using an LLM (determining whether there is a match level, empty set, etc. between an input query with a narrowed down "scope of the data" or "sets of data" as part of an "action protocol", Paragraphs 0029, 0048-0049, and 0101);
removing, by the computer, all data elements from a data schema for the database having a mapped category that has a match level of does not match (based upon the constraint matching with the LLM to a database of entries a relevant "scope of data" is "retrieved" while irrelevant/unnecessary data that does not meet the constraints is filtered out from the complete database schema, Paragraphs 0020, 0028-0029, 0048-0049, and 0101-0102);
using, by the computer, the modified data schema for the database with the LLM to answer the user question (with the action protocol set of data in hand, the LLM takes next steps including executing a response to the question, Paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0047-0049 wherein an LLM may be of the same type such as one of the GPT models that are generally and specially trained, Paragraphs 0030-0031); and
transmitting, by the computer, the answer to a display (data transmitted to the display device including the query response "such as text-based explanations, tables, charts, or other visual elements, in a format that is optimized for the chatbot interface," Paragraphs 0026 and 0052; Figs. 2A-B showing GUI examples).
With respect to Claim 2, Browder further discloses
The method of claim 1 wherein determining the plurality of categories comprises: inputting a data schema for the database into the LLM; and transmitting a request to the LLM to cluster tables and columns of the database into categories (data input in the form of numerical tables wherein tables indicating these data types would include rows and columns where the LLM is prompted to order such data into "predefined groups or categories", 0020, 0028-0029, and 0048).
With respect to Claim 3, Browder further discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of categories comprises a category identification number, a category name, a category description, one or more SQL filters associated with the categories, or any combination thereof (categories where examples of category names or descriptors such as "pediatric" or "date range" are observed, Paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0048).
Claim 6 is a system embodiment for carrying out the steps of claim 1 as part of the system functionality, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Moreover, Browder discloses the additional system components in the form of a database that includes data to be used with the LLM (Paragraphs 0020 and 0029; Fig. 1, Element 146) and a processor (Paragraph 0022; Fig. 1, Element 104).
Claims 7-8 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 2-3, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions for carrying out the steps of claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Moreover, Browder discloses method implementation as a computer program product comprising instructions (Paragraph 0105). Note that while the program functionality of claim 11 has been addressed in the interest of compact prosecution such functionality need not be addressed due to an issue of printed matter. Specifically, claim 11 only recites instructions rather than a processor/computer-executable program. Thus, under the BRI, the instructions could amount to a step or series of steps readable by a human. See MPEP 2111.05 (III) noting that when computer-readable medium encompasses by the broader computer program product that includes program/data per se such printed matter does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to Claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
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 4-5, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browder, et al. in view of Zhang, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2025/0335717 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Browder teaches the method for constraining database entries into a modified data structure for generating a response to a user query using an LLM as applied to Claim 1. Browder does not specifically recite the ability of the LLM to translate user question to SQL as set forth in claim 4. Zhang, however, recites an LLM that interprets a user prompt and translates the criteria indicated in the search prompt into SQL (Paragraphs 0043, 0059, 0072, and 0087).
Browder and Zhang are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in database query response generation using large language models. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize Zhang’s LLM query-to-SQL translation to process the input query into a chatbot taught by Browder to provide a predictable result in the form of more efficient database retrieval and/or compatibility with a schema (Zhang, Paragraph 0074).
With respect to Claim 5, Zhang further discloses:
The method of claim 4 , further comprising applying a filter to the SQL when a category for the user question has an associated filter (code or instructions in the form of SQL translated from the user query can include "data filtering parameters," Paragraphs 0023, 0040, 0043, 0087, and 0099).
Claims 9-10 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 4-5, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 13-14 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 4-5, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang, et al. ("DBCopilot: Scaling Natural Language Querying to Massive Databases," April 2024)- disclose a translation of a natural language query into SQL queries for database querying for answer generation (Abstract; Fig. 1).
Dai, et al. ("UQE: AQueryEngine for Unstructured Databases," December 2024)- teaches indexing of a database for more efficient search and natural language translation into UQL (i.e., a dialect of SQL) (Sections 4-4.1 Page and Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights