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 .
The instant application having Application No. 19/043,795 filed on 01/28/2022 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/03/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 02/03/2025, 05/08/2025, 07/30/2025 and 12/19/2025 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,254 ,002 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,254,002 B2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting generating, using the first portion of the query and the second portion of the query, a plurality of executable queries with generating a respective executable query for each of the multiple group of dynamic attributes to be used for obtaining values of attributes in the group for one or more instances of the data entity.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 21, the claim recites “A method, performed by a data processing system, for accessing data in at least one data store of the data processing system by using executable queries, the method comprising:
using at least one computer hardware processor to perform:
(A) obtaining, through an application programming interface (API) of the data processing
system, a query for accessing data, the query indicating multiple dynamic attributes of a data entity
whose values are to be accessed;
(B) generating a plurality of executable queries from the query, the generating comprising:
grouping the multiple dynamic attributes into groups of dynamic attributes; and
generating a respective executable query for each of the multiple groups of dynamic
attributes to be used for obtaining values of attributes in the group for one or more instances
of the data entity;
(C) executing the plurality of executable queries to obtain results for the query, the results
including values of the multiple dynamic attributes of at least one instance of the data entity; and
(D) outputting at least some of the results including the values of the multiple dynamic
attributes of the at least one instance of the data entity”.
Step 1 : Statutory Category
Claim 21 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations “generating” which specifically recite “generating a plurality of executable queries from the query…………one or more instances of the data entity”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at the data items/records and examine the list to identify the relevant data items/records.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the additional elements “obtaining, through an application programming interface (API)…..….whose values are to be accessed”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “obtaining” step mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the steps of “executing the plurality of executable queries…..…” and “outputting” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does 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 of using one or more processors to detect the executing the plurality of executable queries…..…” and “generating” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 22, the claim recites “wherein grouping the multiple dynamic attributes is
performed based on whether dynamic attributes are stored in a same table in the at least one data
store”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 23, the claim recites “wherein the query comprises: a first portion comprising information for identifying at least a first instance of the data entity stored in the at least one data store; and a second portion indicating at least one attribute of the data entity for which to obtain a value”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 24, the claim recites “wherein generating the plurality of executable queries from the query comprises: generating, using the first portion of the query, a first set of executable queries for identifying at least the first instance of the data entity stored in the at least one data store; and generating, using the second portion of the query, the second set of executable queries for obtaining attribute values for at least the first instance of the data entity identified using the first set of executable queries, the attribute values including the first attribute value, wherein generating the second set of executable queries comprises: the grouping the multiple dynamic attributes into the groups of dynamic attributes; and generating the respective executable query for each of the multiple groups of dynamic attributes to be used for obtaining the values of attributes in the group for the one or more instances of the data entity”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 25, the claim recites “wherein the first and second sets of executable queries comprise executable structured query language (SQL) queries”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 26, the claim recites “wherein executing the plurality of executable queries comprises: executing the first set of executable queries to obtain information identifying at least the first instance of the data entity; and after executing the first set of executable queries, executing, using the information identifying at least the first instance of the data entity, the second set of executable queries”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 27, the claim recites “wherein the query indicates a hierarchy of attributes, and wherein outputting at least some of the results comprise: formatting the at least some of the results in a hierarchical format corresponding to the hierarchy of attributes; and outputting the at least some of the results in the hierarchical format”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 28 the claim recites “A data processing system, comprising:
at least one computer hardware processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable
instructions that, when executed by the at least one computer hardware processor, cause the at least
one computer hardware processor to perform a method for accessing data in at least one data store
of the data processing system by using executable queries, the method comprising:
(A) obtaining, through an application programming interface (API) of the data processing
system, a query for accessing data, the query indicating multiple dynamic attributes of a data entity
whose values are to be accessed;
(B) generating a plurality of executable queries from the query, the generating comprising:
grouping the multiple dynamic attributes into groups of dynamic attributes; and
generating a respective executable query for each of the multiple groups of dynamic
attributes to be used for obtaining values of attributes in the group for one or more instances
of the data entity;
(C) executing the plurality of executable queries to obtain results for the query, the results
including values of the multiple dynamic attributes of at least one instance of the data entity; and
(D) outputting at least some of the results including the values of the multiple dynamic
attributes of the at least one instance of the data entity”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 28 discloses a system which is a machine within the meaning of the section.
Claim 28 recites the same limitations as claim 21 and therefore is rejected under the same premise as claim 21.
As per claim 29, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 22.
As per claim 30, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 23.
As per claim 31, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 24.
As per claim 32, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 25.
As per claim 33, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 26.
As per claim 34, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 27.
As per claim 35 the claim recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one computer hardware processor, cause the at least one computer hardware processor to perform a method for accessing data in at least one data store of a data processing system by using executable queries, the method comprising:
(A) obtaining, through an application programming interface (API) of the data processing
system, a query for accessing data, the query indicating multiple dynamic attributes of a data entity
whose values are to be accessed;
(B) generating a plurality of executable queries from the query, the generating comprising:
grouping the multiple dynamic attributes into groups of dynamic attributes; and
generating a respective executable query for each of the multiple groups of dynamic
attributes to be used for obtaining values of attributes in the group for one or more instances
of the data entity;
(C) executing the plurality of executable queries to obtain results for the query, the results
including values of the multiple dynamic attributes of at least one instance of the data entity; and
(D) outputting at least some of the results including the values of the multiple dynamic
attributes of at least one instance of the data entity”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 35 discloses a CRM which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section.
Claim 35 recites the same limitations as claim 21 and therefore is rejected under the same premise as claim 21.
As per claim 36, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 22.
As per claim 37, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 23.
As per claim 38, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 24.
As per claim 39, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 25.
As per claim 40, the claim is rejected under the same premise as claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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://pairdirect.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.
Jan. 09, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153