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 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG.
Regarding to claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites: A method of retrieving data from a database system, the method comprising:
“receiving, a selection of a location within a database system, wherein the database system comprises one or more databases, wherein data at the selected location within the database system is of a first data format”. This element reads on a person selects a location of data with a first data format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“displaying, a list of one or more publication methods”. This element reads on a person displays publication methods which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“receiving, a selection of a publication method from the list of one or more publication methods, wherein the selected publication method corresponds to the selected location of the database system”. This element reads on a person selects a publication method corresponds to the selected location which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“executing, the selected publication method to interrogate the selected location of the database system, wherein executing the selected publication method produces a data output, wherein the data output comprises data in a second data format different to the first data format”. This element reads on a person executes the publication of the selected data with a second data format different to the first data format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to convert & display data format and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “a computer-implemented”
Regarding the computer-implemented,
The processor of a computer system for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “a computer-implemented” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements “a computer-implemented” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “
a level requirement defining the one or more locations within the database system at which the publication method can be executed;
a plurality of publication steps, wherein each publication step of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an action performed on the database system or an action performed on the data in the database system, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the plurality of publication steps in a pre-defined order; and
a description indicating an outcome of the actions performed by the plurality of publication steps." That is, the claim recites
a level requirement defining the one or more locations within the database system at which the publication method can be executed;
a plurality of publication steps, wherein each publication step of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an action performed on the database system or an action performed on the data in the database system, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the plurality of publication steps in a pre-defined order; and
a description indicating an outcome of the actions performed by the plurality of publication steps. The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein only the one or more publication methods comprising a respective level requirement compatible with the received selection of the location are displayed." That is, the claim recites wherein only the one or more publication methods comprising a respective level requirement compatible with the received selection of the location are displayed. The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a publication step of the plurality of publications steps may be one of:
an export action;
an export ground description action;
an unpack data sequences action;
the action performed by one or more SQL commands; and
a close database connection action" That is, the claim recites wherein a publication step of the plurality of publications steps may be one of:
an export action;
an export ground description action;
an unpack data sequences action;
the action performed by one or more SQL commands; and
a close database connection action. The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps correspond to the action performed by one or more SQL commands, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the one or more SQL commands in the pre-defined order to perform the corresponding action." That is, the claim recites wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps correspond to the action performed by one or more SQL commands, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the one or more SQL commands in the pre-defined order to perform the corresponding action. The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a generic syntax that can be executed on any database type and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of the generic syntax." That is, the claim recites wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a generic syntax that can be executed on any database type and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of the generic syntax. The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a first specific database type, and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of a first database-specific syntax." That is, the claim recites wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a first specific database type, and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of a first database-specific syntax. The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1-2 and 7, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the action is performed by one or more further SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a second specific database type, wherein the at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more further SQL commands are of a second database-specific syntax different from the first database-specific syntax." That is, the claim recites wherein the action is performed by one or more further SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a second specific database type, wherein the at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more further SQL commands are of a second database-specific syntax different from the first database-specific syntax. The above-noted limitation of claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 1-2 and 7, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “determining the database-specific syntax based on the selection of the location." That is, the claim recites determining the database-specific syntax based on the selection of the location. The above-noted limitation of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 10 is dependent on claims 1-2 and 5, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the one or more SQL commands comprise a macro." That is, the claim recites wherein the one or more SQL commands comprise a macro. The above-noted limitation of claim 10, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 11 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an export action to export the output data to a pre-defined file format, optionally, wherein the pre-defined file format comprises one or more of a MS Access database export file, a *.ales file, *.txt file or a *.csv file." That is, the claim recites wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an export action to export the output data to a pre-defined file format, optionally, wherein the pre-defined file format comprises one or more of a MS Access database export file, a *.ales file, *.txt file or a *.csv file. The above-noted limitation of claim 11, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 12 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a publication step of an export action defines a coding standard." That is, the claim recites wherein a publication step of an export action defines a coding standard. The above-noted limitation of claim 12, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “wherein interrogating the database system comprises one or more of viewing, altering or exporting from the database system." That is, the claim recites wherein interrogating the database system comprises one or more of viewing, altering or exporting from the database system. The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the database system comprises one or more relational databases." That is, the claim recites wherein the database system comprises one or more relational databases. The above-noted limitation of claim 14, as drafted, is a process that, 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 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 11 ,13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMAGATA et al (JP 2004280785 A hereinafter, “YAMAGATA”).
6. With respect to claim 1,
YAMAGATA discloses a computer-implemented method of retrieving data from a database system, the method comprising:
receiving, a selection of a location (YAMAGATA page 5 e.g. location; [page 5] The processing unit 1022 includes a user information acquisition unit 1022A, a processing content determination unit 1022B, a publication number conversion unit 1022C, a data storage location identification unit 1022D, a latest issue count information acquisition unit 1022E, and a previous generation issue count information acquisition. Unit 1022F, an inter-generation data comparison unit 1022G, and a mail document creation unit 1022H. … The publication number conversion unit 1022C converts a character string input using a publication number designation character set in advance into a publication number. The data storage location specifying unit 1022D specifies the storage location of the publication data based on the publication number converted by the publication number conversion unit 1022C) within a database system, wherein the database system comprises one or more databases, wherein data at the selected location within the database system is of a first data format (YAMAGATA pages 7, 11 e.g. format; [page 7] The data conversion unit 1042C converts the format of the publication data acquired by the corresponding data acquisition unit 10428 into the editing form specified by the order details and adjusts the layout. The publication data storage unit 1043 divides SGML data (metadata) including a plurality of publications provided by the JPO as electronic data into units of publication and stores the divided data as compressed data. Further, as a data format for storing data divided into publications, for example, data converted to XML, data converted to TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), data converted to text, and the like are stored as compressed data. You may do it. [page 11] Further, in the above-described embodiment, the data format when the format of the publication data is converted is PDF. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, HTML, TIFF, text, JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), GIF (Graphic Interchange Format).);
displaying, a list of one or more publication methods (YAMAGATA pages 5-7 e.g. publications; [page 5] Based on the progress information display data stored in the display data storage unit 1014, the progress information display data creation unit 1012B stores the publication number designated by the registrant terminal 201 and the progress information of the publication range in the registrant terminal 201. The processing content determination unit 1012C stores the order information (publication number and publication range, editing format, output medium) received from the registrant terminal 201 in the order information storage unit 1013, and an order publication that determines the order content from the order information … The publication number conversion unit 1022C converts a character string input using a publication number designation character set in advance into a publication number. The data storage location specifying unit 1022D specifies the storage location of the publication data based on the publication number converted by the publication number conversion unit 1022C. [page 6] The interface unit 1041 acquires an order publication data creation instruction from the Web server 101. A process for transmitting the publication PDF data to the Web server 101 is executed. … The data conversion unit 1042C converts the format of the publication data acquired by the corresponding data acquisition unit 10428 into the editing form specified by the order details and adjusts the layout. The publication data storage unit 1043 divides SGML data (metadata) including a plurality of publications provided by the JPO as electronic data into units of publication and stores the divided data as compressed data. Further, as a data format for storing data divided into publications, for example, data converted to XML, data converted to TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), data converted to text, and the like are stored as compressed data. [page 7] On the order information reception screen 300 of FIG. 8, a publication number input frame 301, an input list 302 for displaying a list of a plurality of publication numbers input from the publication number input frame 301, and browsing PDF data for browsing created from the publication data);
receiving, a selection of a publication method from the list of one or more publication methods, wherein the selected publication method corresponds to the selected location of the database system; and
executing, the selected publication method to interrogate (YAMAGATA page 9 e.g. viewing) the selected location of the database system, wherein executing the selected publication method produces a data output, wherein the data output comprises data in a second data format different to the first data format (YAMAGATA pages 7, 11 e.g. form; [page 7] The data conversion unit 1042C converts the format of the publication data acquired by the corresponding data acquisition unit 10428 into the editing form specified by the order details and adjusts the layout. The publication data storage unit 1043 divides SGML data (metadata) including a plurality of publications provided by the JPO as electronic data into units of publication and stores the divided data as compressed data. Further, as a data format for storing data divided into publications, for example, data converted to XML, data converted to TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), data converted to text, and the like are stored as compressed data. You may do it. [page 11] Further, in the above-described embodiment, the data format when the format of the publication data is converted is PDF. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, HTML, TIFF, text, JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), GIF (Graphic Interchange Format).).
7. With respect to claim 2,
YAMAGATA discloses wherein the selected publication method comprises:
a level requirement defining the one or more locations (YAMAGATA page 5 e.g. location) within the database system at which the publication method can be executed;
a plurality of publication steps, wherein each publication step of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an action (YAMAGATA pages 3, 13 e.g. query; [claim 2] A receiving step of receiving a query request for data such as the patent publication by specifying a publication number and a publication range from a registrant terminal, and receiving each specification of an editing form and an output medium of the query result) performed on the database system or an action performed on the data in the database system, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the plurality of publication steps in a pre-defined order (YAMAGATA page 7 e.g. On the order information reception screen 300 of FIG. 8, a publication number input frame 301, an input list 302 for displaying a list of a plurality of publication numbers input from the publication number input frame 301, and browsing PDF data for browsing created from the publication data. A receiving method (mail, copy, copy+ FAX) specifying unit 303 for specifying a receiving method (output medium), and an order type (full text, summary (abstract), A front) designation unit 304 and a gazette reference screen 305 indicating the type, range, and order type that the gazette can provide are displayed. When a publication number, an order type, and a receiving method are input from the registrant terminal 201 on the order information reception screen 300, the order information is transmitted to the Web server 101 as order information (P1).); and
a description indicating an outcome of the actions performed by the plurality of publication steps (YAMAGATA pages 3, 13 e.g. output medium of the query result; [claim 2] A receiving step of receiving a query request for data such as the patent publication by specifying a publication number and a publication range from a registrant terminal, and receiving each specification of an editing form and an output medium of the query result).
8. With respect to claim 11,
YAMAGATA discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps corresponds to an export action to export the output data to a pre-defined file format, optionally, wherein the pre-defined file format comprises one or more of a MS Access database export file, a *.ales file, *.txt file (YAMAGATA abstract, pages 6-12 e.g. PDF) or a *.csv file.
9. With respect to claim 13,
YAMAGATA discloses wherein interrogating the database system comprises one or more of viewing (YAMAGATA page 9 e.g. viewing), altering or exporting from the database system.
10. Claims 15-16 are same as claims 1-2 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 2-6, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGATA in view of Rothpearl et al (U.S. 20070203748 A1 hereinafter, “Rothpearl”).
16. With respect to claim 3,
Although YAMAGATA substantially teaches the claimed invention, YAMAGATA does not explicitly indicate wherein only the one or more publication methods comprising a respective level requirement compatible with the received selection of the location are displayed.
Rothpearl teaches the limitations by stating wherein only the one or more publication methods comprising a respective level requirement compatible (Rothpearl [0044], [0074], [0089] e.g. compatible) with the received selection of the location are displayed.
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 YAMAGATA and Rothpearl, to provide the data as an output medium, the burden of database management and search processing can be reduced, and file conversion processing into an editing form according to a request of a registrant can be facilitated (YAMAGATA page 3).
17. With respect to claim 4,
Rothpearl further discloses wherein a publication step of the plurality of publications steps may be one of:
an export action;
an export ground description action;
an unpack data sequences action;
the action performed by one or more SQL commands (Rothpearl [0044], [0065], [0067] e.g. SQL); and
a close database connection action.
18. With respect to claim 5,
Rothpearl further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of publication steps correspond to the action performed by one or more SQL commands, wherein executing the publication method comprises executing the one or more SQL commands in the pre-defined order to perform the corresponding action (Rothpearl [0044], [0065], [0067] e.g. SQL).
19. With respect to claim 6,
Rothpearl further discloses wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a generic syntax that can be executed on any database type and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of the generic syntax (Rothpearl [0067], [0083], [0102], [0116], [0137] – [0143] e.g. SQL-like syntaxes).
20. Claims 17-20 are same as claims 3-6 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
21. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGATA in view of Rabins et al (U.S. 20170031661 A1 hereinafter, “Rabins”).
22. With respect to claim 7,
Although YAMAGATA substantially teaches the claimed invention, YAMAGATA does not explicitly indicate wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a first specific database type, and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of a first database-specific syntax.
Rabins teaches the limitations by stating wherein the action is performed by one or more SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a first specific database type, and wherein at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more SQL commands are of a first database-specific syntax (Rabins [0050] e.g. In various embodiments, the low-code environment 102 supports a so-called “Portable SQL” syntax to provide database-independent, standardized SQL syntax that is translated into a database-specific SQL dialect supported by the database 128).
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 YAMAGATA and Rabins, to provide the data as an output medium, the burden of database management and search processing can be reduced, and file conversion processing into an editing form according to a request of a registrant can be facilitated (YAMAGATA page 3).
23. With respect to claim 8,
Rabins further discloses wherein the action is performed by one or more further SQL commands of a database-specific syntax that can only be executed on a second specific database type, wherein the at least one publication step further comprises a label specifying the one or more further SQL commands are of a second database-specific syntax different from the first database-specific syntax (Rabins [0050] e.g. In various embodiments, the low-code environment 102 supports a so-called “Portable SQL” syntax to provide database-independent, standardized SQL syntax that is translated into a database-specific SQL dialect supported by the database 128).
24. With respect to claim 9,
Rabins further discloses determining the database-specific syntax (Rabins [0050] e.g. In various embodiments, the low-code environment 102 supports a so-called “Portable SQL” syntax to provide database-independent, standardized SQL syntax that is translated into a database-specific SQL dialect supported by the database 128) based on the selection of the location.
25. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGATA in view of WANG et al (CN 115640479 A hereinafter, “WANG”).
26. With respect to claim 12,
Although YAMAGATA substantially teaches the claimed invention, YAMAGATA does not explicitly indicate wherein a publication step of an export action defines a coding standard.
WANG teaches the limitations by stating wherein a publication step of an export action defines a coding standard (WANG page 5 e.g. In the actual situation, the data analysis is complex, the SQL sentence can be used to output the result. the execution process does not limit the length and complexity of the SQL, SQL compile the corresponding specification needs to follow the corresponding coding standard of each data source. the return value of the call interface must follow the corresponding requirement of the component, and the data filling format of each component is different.).
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 YAMAGATA and WANG, to provide the data as an output medium, the burden of database management and search processing can be reduced, and file conversion processing into an editing form according to a request of a registrant can be facilitated (YAMAGATA page 3).
27. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGATA in view of Rothpearl, and further in view of PITTS et al (WO 03012698 A2 hereinafter, “PITTS”).
28. With respect to claim 10,
Although YAMAGATA and Rothpearl combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate wherein the one or more SQL commands comprise a macro.
PITTS teaches the limitations by stating wherein the one or more SQL commands comprise a macro (PITTS [0012] e.g. [012] Multi-dimensional Expressions ("MDX") is a query language developed to express multi-dimensional queries. MDX is similar to SQL and may be implemented as a set of macros built on a SQL language foundation).
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 YAMAGATA, Rothpearl and PITTS, to provide the data as an output medium, the burden of database management and search processing can be reduced, and file conversion processing into an editing form according to a request of a registrant can be facilitated (YAMAGATA page 3).
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.
29. 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.
30. 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 8am-4:30pm.
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
May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights