CTNF 19/171,453 CTNF 85624 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 9, 12, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an application database” in line 3 of claim 1, line 7 of claim 9, line 5 of claim 17 should read “the application database”. “the database language” in claims 4, 12, 18 should read “the database language of the database language query” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 9-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalasky (US 20250245371) in view of Bhogal (US 20140059519) and further in view of Park (US 20230252005) . Claims 1 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as in claim 9. Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 10. Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 11. Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 12. Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 13. Claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 14. 9. Zalasky discloses A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more storage devices coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for securing end user access to an application database, the operations comprising: (e.g. figs. 1, 5, ¶9, 12, 20, 75) receiving a natural language query from an application end user requesting access to particular data in an application database; (e.g. ¶30: The method 200a may include receiving, at step 202, a natural language (NL) query. The NL query may be in the form of a sentence, phrase, question, or other human intelligible statement according to any language, e.g., “how many device have this vulnerability” or “how many devices are using licenses for [software].” The NL query may be received as a recording of speech that is subsequently transcribed to text using a speech-to-text algorithm. In some embodiments, the NL query is not code according to SQL or other programming language, i.e., a language used to execute queries with respect to any of the databases 106.) identifying an identifier associated with the application end user; (e.g. ¶31: The method 200a may include receiving, at step 204, access information for a source of the NL query, e.g., a user identifier with respect to which the user device 110 is authenticated. The access information may include any information defining a scope of access associated with a role assigned to the user identifier. The role may include a job title or membership within a business unit, department, group of users, or other set of users having access control information associated therewith. The access control information may specify which databases 106 or portions tables, columns of tables, etc. are accessible using the user identifier or a role associated with the user identifier. The access control information may be in the form of one or more routes that may be accessed. The access information may be in the form of a certificate or token (e.g., JAVASCRIPT object notation (JSON) token) that can be used to authenticate the user device 110.) generating, based on the identifier, a database containing application-specific data from the application database that the application end user is permitted to access; (e.g. ¶49, 61: In some embodiments, steps 224 and 226 may be performed earlier in the method 200a. For example, following step 206, relevant routes are known. Data referenced by the relevant routes may be pre-fetched by the frontend 108 from the server system 102. The frontend 108 may then respond to any request to execute the command with the pre-fetched data. Likewise, as soon as the command is received from the LLM, the data referenced by the command may be pre-fetched from the server system 102 and be available to provide to the user device 110 when execution of the command is requested…In response to receiving, at step 310, the command, the frontend 108 accesses, at step 312, data referenced by the command. Accessing, at step 312, the data by the front end 108 may be conditioned on the user identifier associated with the command (e.g., the source of the NL query) being authorized to access the data according to the access control policy of step 308. The frontend 108 may then render, at step 314, the data according to the visualization embedded in the frontend 108 at step 302. Rendering, at step 314, the data may include generating a graphic (table, graph, other visualization).) translating the natural language query to a database language query; (e.g. ¶37, 42: The method 200a may then include generating, at step 210, one or more prompts to submit to the LLM 114. The items of information may include the NL query itself and the one or more candidate routes identified at step 206…The method 200a may include requesting, at step 212, generation of a command by the LLM 114 by submitting the one or more prompts from step 210 to the LLM 114 and receiving a command generated by the LLM in response to the one or more prompts. In the examples herein the “command” is a URL referencing data within one or more databases 106. However, the command could be one or more SQL commands, multiple URLs, or commands according to some other database language or other programming language.) retrieving, using the database language query, the particular data from the database; and outputting the particular data to the application end user to respond to the natural language query. (e.g. ¶48-49: If the source of the instruction is not verified, the instruction is ignored. If so, then the command, e.g., the command from step 214 referenced by the instruction, is forwarded to a server system 102. The server system 102 then executes, at step 224, the command and returns, at step 226, a result of the command to the user device 110 directly or by way of some other component, such as the backend server 116. Step 226 may include formatting the result. For example, step 226 may include generating a graph or other visualization or generate a webpage including the result for rendering in the browser or client application executing on the user device 110. In some embodiments, steps 224 and 226 may be performed earlier in the method 200a. For example, following step 206, relevant routes are known. Data referenced by the relevant routes may be pre-fetched by the frontend 108 from the server system 102. The frontend 108 may then respond to any request to execute the command with the pre-fetched data. Likewise, as soon as the command is received from the LLM, the data referenced by the command may be pre-fetched from the server system 102 and be available to provide to the user device 110 when execution of the command is requested.) Although Zalasky discloses generating, based on the identifier, a database containing application-specific data (see above), Zalasky does not appear to explicitly disclose but Bhogal discloses generating, based on the identifier, a virtual database (e.g. ¶34, 46-49: 10. Data sources (databases, schemas/tablespaces, etc.) are associated/mapped and assigned permissions for access to the data sources so that only specific user IDs may access data…1. Generating virtual databases associated with the user IDs. 2. Mapping the user IDs to the virtual databases through the user specific permissions. 3. Generating data sources associated with the virtual databases. 4. Assigning the user specific permissions to the data sources.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Bhogal into the invention of Zalasky for the purpose of advantageously providing a simple method and associated system capable of managing multiple users of a system (Bhogal, ¶7). Although Zalasky discloses retrieving, using the database language query, the particular data from the database (see above), Zalasky does not appear to explicitly disclose but Park discloses retrieving from the virtual database (e.g. fig.3, ¶75: As illustrated in FIG. 3, each of the plurality of schemas 320A, 320B, and 320C may refer to the data included in the plurality of table spaces based on the meta information managed in the mapped meta table space. For example, when the computing device 100 or the virtual database system 300 in FIG. 3 receives a query written based on a Structured Query Language (SQL), the virtual database system 300 may determine a schema that manages the data necessary for processing the query by referring to the meta information of the schemas 320A, 320B, and 320C. The computing device 100 or the virtual database system 300 in FIG. 3 may process the data by accessing the table space in which the data is stored based on the determined schema.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Park into the invention of Zalasky-Bhogal for the purpose of solving the existing problems of data redundancy and synchronization, and achieve the technical effect that it is easy to manage data (Park, ¶77). 10. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the natural language query is translated to the database language query using a machine learning model. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶42) 11. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the machine learning model is a large language model. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶42) 12. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the database language is structured query language. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶42) 13. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the identifier is at least one of a token, numerical value, string value, or bit value. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶31) 14. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the identifier is a composite of two or more identifiers. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶31) 18. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the database language is structured query language, and the natural language query is translated to the structured query language using a machine learning model. (Zalasky, e.g. ¶42) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalasky (US 20250245371) in view of Bhogal (US 20140059519) in view of Park (US 20230252005) and further in view of Shachar (US 20220229928) . Claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 15. 15. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise generating the identifier (Zalasky, e.g. ¶31) and does not appear to explicitly disclose but Shachar discloses based on the application end user being authenticated. (e.g. ¶20). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Shachar into the invention of Zalasky-Bhogal-Park for the purpose of ensuring that authorized access is only given to authenticated user thereby increasing the security of the system. 19. Zalasky-Bhogal-Park discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the identifier is at least one of a token, numerical value, string value, or bit value, and the operations further comprise generating the identifier (Zalasky, e.g. ¶31) and does not appear to explicitly disclose but Shachar discloses based on the application end user being authenticated. (Shachar, e.g. ¶20). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Shachar into the invention of Zalasky-Bhogal-Park for the purpose of ensuring that authorized access is only given to authenticated user thereby increasing the security of the system . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8, 16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Li (US 20180173773) discloses A database processing system includes a coordinator agent controller and a virtual node data base. The coordinator agent controller detects a request to access a database by an application program and to extracts database objects from a database protocol stream based on a requirement requested by the application program. The virtual node database is generated according to the extracted database objects. The virtual node database includes memory dump storage that stores the database objects extracted from the database protocol stream, and based on the database objects the virtual node database generates virtual database objects corresponding to the database protocol stream. The extraction of database objects is performed directly on the database protocol stream without communicating with a target real database. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached on (571)272-4219. 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. /TRONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 2 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 4 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 5 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 6 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 7 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 8 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 9 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 19/171,453 Page 10 Art Unit: 2436
Prosecution Insights