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. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 7/7/26. Claims 21, 29 and 37 have been amended. Claims 26, 34 and 38 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25, 27-33, 35-37 and 39-40 are pending.
Applicants' arguments filed 7/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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)) by formatting (e.g. schema - convert the natural language query to a corresponding structured query) at least a portion of the set of commands (e.g. operations/operators) corresponding with the nodes of the node tree (e.g. structured query syntax) according to formatting knowledge (e.g. schema - convert the natural language query to a corresponding structured query) obtained from a command mapping table or a conversion call (e.g. convert … function call) corresponding to the target query language (e.g. structured query language - SQL) (Acharya [0016] – [0017], [0020], [0029], [0031], [0079], [0110], [0118], [0120] e.g. convert – [0016] Various examples described herein are directed to a natural language system. The natural language system may be programmed to receive a natural language query and convert the natural language query to a corresponding structured query for execution at a database or other data store. …. The natural language system, as described herein, may improve the operation of the client applications, database management system, or other suitable computing system, for example, by enabling casual users to utilize complex structured queries without an intimate familiarity with the database schema and/or the specific structured query syntax utilized by the database management system. [0017] In various examples, the natural language system may utilize an expression tree structure or expression tree to convert natural language queries to structured queries. The natural language system may identify operators and operands included in the natural language query. Operators maybe functions or operations that may be performed on data. …. [0018] The operators and operands may be utilized to generate the expression tree, which may include a plurality of interconnected nodes including function nodes and argument nodes. Function nodes may correspond to specific functions or queries supported by the relevant structured query syntax (e.g., structured query language (SQL) or another suitable syntax). Argument nodes may depend from function nodes and may indicate an argument for the parent function node. In some examples, there may be a one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-one relationship between operators and function nodes. For example, the operator “greater than” from the example above may be incorporated into a single function node having two dependent argument nodes, … In this case, as described in more detail below, the operator “highest” may be incorporated into the expression tree as two function nodes. A first function node may correspond to a sort function which sorts allowable values for the operand “region” by the operand “losses.” A second function node may correspond to a limit function that returns the highest value from the list generated by the sort function. Similarly, operands may have one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-one relationships with argument nodes. [0019] The expression tree may be utilized to generate a structured query. For example, the natural language system may traverse the expression tree from a root node. Function nodes may be used to generate corresponding function calls, with argument nodes indicating the argument or arguments for the function calls. …. [0020] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing one example of an environment 100 for converting natural language queries to structured queries. The environment 100 comprises a database management system 102 including a natural language system 108. The database management system 102 manages a database 110 that may be organized according to a schema that describes various tables at the database including, for example, columns of the tables and relationships between the tables. …. [0110] In Example 2, the subject matter of Example 1 optionally includes wherein the second node depends from the first node, and wherein the query comprises a call for the first function with the first argument. [0029] …. The root node may be a function node. The natural language system 108 may add to the structured query a function call corresponding to the function indicated by the root node with arguments determined by the node or nodes that depend from the operator node. If a second function node depends from the root node, then the natural language system 108 incorporate a function call for the second function node into the function call for the root node, for example, as a nested or embedded function call. (For example, the second function call, or a result thereof, may be an operand of the first function call.) This process may continue, in some examples, until all nodes of the expression tree 122 are added to the structured query 124, for example, as function calls or arguments of function calls. ….[0031] FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing one example of a process flow 200 that may be executed by the natural language system 108 to convert a natural language query 116 to a structured query 124. … [0118] In Example 10, the subject matter of any one or more of Examples 1-9 optionally includes wherein a third node also depends from the first node, and wherein generating the query comprises: executing a query generation function with the first node as a current node, wherein the executing comprises: calling the query generation function with the third node as the current node; and returning a function call corresponding to the first function, wherein an argument of the function call comprises a result of calling the query generation function with the third node as the current node; an d executing the query generation function with the third node as the current node, wherein the executing comprises: calling the query generation function with the third node as the current node, wherein a fourth node depends from the third node; and returning a second function call corresponding to a third function associated with the third node, wherein an argument of the second function call comprises a result of calling the query generation function with the third node as the current node.);
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 27 and 35 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 27,
Acharya 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 (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 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).
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. Claim 35 is same as claim 27 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
17. 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”).
18. 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).
19. Claim 36 is same as claim 28 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Response to Argument
20. Applicant’s remarks and arguments presented on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
21. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SyLing Yen whose telephone number is 571-270-1306.
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 and phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights