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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The pending claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 21-25, 29-33, 37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya in view of CHEN.
7. With respect to claim 21,
Acharya discloses
a method comprising:
obtaining, at a query formatter, a node tree (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. structured query syntax) corresponding to a target query language (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. natural language), the node tree (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. structured query syntax) generated based on a conversion of individual nodes of an initial node tree (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. node – expression tree; The natural language system may generate an expression tree based at least in part on the set of operators and the set of operands. The expression tree may comprise a plurality of interconnected nodes. A first node may be associated with a first function corresponding to a first operator of the set of operators and a second node may be associated with a first argument of the first function corresponding to a first operand of the set of operands) corresponding to an initial query language;
parsing, via the query formatter, the node tree to obtain a set of commands (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. operators) corresponding with nodes of the node tree (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. structured query syntax);
generating a target query string in a format executable in the target query language (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. structured query language (SQL));
executing the target query string to generate search results; and
transmitting the search results over a network to a client computing device for display (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019], [0029] e.g. structured query language (SQL) – [0019] Results of the queries may be returned to the original user. [0029] A result or results of the structure query124 may be returned to the user 106, for example, via the client application 114 and client computing device 104.).
Although Acharya substantially teaches the claimed invention, Acharya does not explicitly indicate a structured query syntax is a node tree.
CHEN teaches the limitations by stating (CHEN pages 2-3, 5-6 e.g. SQL syntax tree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Acharya and CHEN, to fully make use of the traditional relational database advantage on the data storing, but also can conveniently use the popular XML data format to a relational database of internet data transmission, causing the human research interest (CHEN pages 1-2).
8. With respect to claim 22,
Acharya further discloses generating the initial node tree corresponding to the initial query language, the initial node tree logically representing an initial query string, wherein individual nodes of the initial node tree correspond to individual commands, in the initial query language, specified within the initial query string (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. natural language).
9. With respect to claim 23,
Acharya further discloses generating the node tree corresponding to the target query language, wherein generating the node tree comprises determining the conversion of the individual nodes of the initial node tree, wherein conversion of each individual node in the initial node tree results in a corresponding node in the node tree (Acharya [0018], [0068], [0075] – [0079] e.g. since the expression tree needed to be converted to the second query language (e.g. SQL)).
10. With respect to claim 24,
Acharya further discloses generating the node tree by parsing and tokenizing the initial node tree (Acharya Abstract, [0024] – [0027] e.g. terms – Various examples are directed to converting a natural language query to a structured query. The natural language query may comprise a plurality of terms. A natural language system may generate a set of operators and a set of operands based at least in part on the plurality of terms and a metadata dictionary. The natural language system may generate an expression tree based at least in part on the set of operators and the set of operands. The expression tree may comprise a plurality of interconnected nodes. A first node may be associated with a first function corresponding to a first operator of the set of operators and a second node may be associated with a first argument of the first function corresponding to a first operand of the set of operands. The natural language system may generate a query based at least in part on the expression tree).
11. With respect to claim 25,
Acharya further discloses generating the target query string comprises converting the set of commands corresponding with nodes of the node tree to the format executable in the target query language (Acharya abstract, [0016] – [0019] e.g. structured query language (SQL)).
12. Claims 29-33 are same as claims 21-25 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
13. Claims 37 and 39-40 are same as claims 21, 25 and 23 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
14. Claims 26-27, 34-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya in view of CHEN, and further in view of CHOI et al (KR 20220111020 A hereinafter, “CHOI”).
15. With respect to claim 26,
Acharya discloses wherein generating the target query string in the format executable in the target query language comprises obtaining formatting knowledge using command mapping (Acharya Abstract, [0024] – [0027], [0058] e.g. mapped).
Although Acharya and CHEN combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate a mapping table.
CHOI teaches the limitations by stating wherein generating the target query string in the format executable in the target query language comprises obtaining formatting knowledge using command mapping table (CHOI abstract e.g. A method for an SQL phrase generation apparatus to generate an SQL phrase to search for computer data, includes the following steps of: receiving a computer data search request through an integrated management environment; generating a natural language conditional clause based on extraction information written in a Korean text and an extraction search condition through the computer data inquiry request; receiving one target database selected from among a plurality of databases, and connecting the selected target database; deriving a mapping table satisfying the natural language conditional clause by parsing the natural language conditional clause with the target database; and generating an SQL phrase based on the derived mapping table. Therefore, the present invention is capable of generating a SQL phrase based on a derived mapping table satisfying a natural language conditional clause), a conversion matrix, or an API conversion call.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Acharya, CHEN and CHOI, to fully make use of the traditional relational database advantage on the data storing, but also can conveniently use the popular XML data format to a relational database of internet data transmission, causing the human research interest (CHEN pages 1-2).
16. With respect to claim 27,
CHOI further discloses wherein a command of a given node in the initial node tree is determined to be functionally equivalent to a given native command or operation of the target query language by reference to a mapping table (CHOI abstract e.g. A method for an SQL phrase generation apparatus to generate an SQL phrase to search for computer data, includes the following steps of: receiving a computer data search request through an integrated management environment; generating a natural language conditional clause based on extraction information written in a Korean text and an extraction search condition through the computer data inquiry request; receiving one target database selected from among a plurality of databases, and connecting the selected target database; deriving a mapping table satisfying the natural language conditional clause by parsing the natural language conditional clause with the target database; and generating an SQL phrase based on the derived mapping table. Therefore, the present invention is capable of generating a SQL phrase based on a derived mapping table satisfying a natural language conditional clause).
17. Claims 34-35 are same as claims 26-27 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
18. Claim 38 is same as claim 26 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
19. Claims 28 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya in view of CHEN, and further in view of Scholak et al (U.S. 20220358125 A hereinafter, “Scholak”).
20. With respect to claim 28,
Although Acharya and CHEN combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate wherein a command of a given node in the initial node tree is converted to a function defined within a compatibility library, only if all options of the command of the given node in the initial node tree are not supported in any native commands or operations of the target query language.
CHEN teaches the limitations by stating wherein a command of a given node in the initial node tree is converted to a function defined within a compatibility library, only if all options of the command of the given node in the initial node tree are not supported in any native commands or operations of the target query language (Scholak [0011], [0046], [0050], [0052], [0064] – [0065] e.g. [0052] For example, when the potential translation 362has one or more terms that were corrected based on fuzzy matching rules, the potential translation362 may receive a penalized lexical analysis score relative to a potential translation having all terms exactly match to the dictionary of terms in the DSL rules 334).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Acharya, CHEN and Scholak, to fully make use of the traditional relational database advantage on the data storing, but also can conveniently use the popular XML data format to a relational database of internet data transmission, causing the human research interest (CHEN pages 1-2).
21. Claim 36 is same as claim 28 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
22. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
23. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SyLing Yen whose telephone number is 571-270-1306. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights