DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amendments, filed 7/7/2026, concerning the rejection of the claims (24-43) under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection of the claims (esp. claim 24) under 35 USC §101, Applicants reiterate the claim language and assert on page 8 that the claims cannot be performed “in the human mind”.
The Office respectfully disagrees. The generation of a query is merely the formulation of a question. This is an activity that can be performed in the human mind or via the use of pencil and paper. The recitation of generic computing elements does not add significantly more than the judicial exception itself. And the recitation of these generic computing elements merely perform generic computer functions. I.e., there are no implementation details recited, merely the use of generic computing elements.
Further regarding the previous rejections of the claims (esp. claim 24) under 35 USC §101, Applicants reiterate the claim language and assert on pages 9-10 that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they improve software for generating data pipeline descriptions.
The Office respectfully disagrees. The recitation of generic computing elements does not add significantly more than the judicial exception itself. And the recitation of these generic computing elements merely perform generic computer functions. I.e., there are no implementation details recited, merely the use of generic computing elements. And, the generation of a query is merely the formulation of a question. This is an activity that can be performed in the human mind or via the use of pencil and paper.
Applicants further argue on page 10 that the independent claims reciting substantially similar limitations, and all dependent claims are allowable for the reasons argued above.
The Office respectfully disagrees, and counter-asserts the rationale set forth above.
.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 is believed to be reasonable, and thus maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-43 are allowable over the prior art. However, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC §101.
Reasons For Allowance
The cited references do not disclose generating a query in a standard query language based on the data pipeline including at least: generating a query component in the standard query language by a first computing model based on one data pipeline element of the one or more data pipeline elements, the one data pipeline element being in a computing language; and generating the query including the query component; providing the generated query in the standard query language to one or more computing models; and receiving the data pipeline description that is generated based at least in part on the generated query in the standard query language by the one or more computing models.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
These claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites at a very level, producing a description of computer operations. Thus, the claims encompass the performance of the limitations in the mind, or simply with the aid of pencil and paper.
Regarding the independent claims (24, 35 and 43):
Step 1: Yes, claim 24 recites a method (therefore a process), claim 35 is directed to a system (therefore a product/machine), and claim 43 is directed to a storage medium for a series of steps executed (therefore a process embodied in a product). Thus, each of these claims is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Judicial Exception Recited?): Yes. Independent claims 24, 35 and 43 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea: “generating a query in a standard query language based on the data pipeline including at least: generating a query component in the standard query language by a first computing model [i.e., generic computing element, see below] based on one data pipeline element of the one or more data pipeline elements, the data pipeline element being in a computing language [ i.e., text]; and generating the query [i.e., a question] including the query component; … that is generated based at least in part on the generated query [i.e., text/question] in the standard query language by the one or more computing models [i.e., generic computing element, see below]”. As drafted, each of these limitations recites a mentally performable process as one can form query and pipeline data elements/structures via a mental process or using paper and pencil.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrated into a Practical Application?): No. Claim 24 recites the following additional elements: “computing models”, “data pipeline”, and "one or more processors”; claim 35 recites: "one or more processors”, "one or more memories”, “data pipeline”, “computing models”; and, claim 43 recites “a storage medium”, "one or more processors”, “data pipeline”, “computing models”. Each of these elements are merely high-level recitations of generic computer components (hardware/software/data structures) and represent mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Additionally, claims 24, 35 and 43 each recite “receiving a data pipeline …”, “providing the generated query …”, and “receiving the data pipeline description …”, which represent insignificant extra-solution activity as the receiving/providing/receiving of data (i.e., mere data gathering or obtaining information) is identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) as not providing integration into a practical application. Also, see MPEP 2106.05 I. A. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Therefore, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept Provided?): No. Regarding claims 24, 35 and 43: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the elements (i.e., steps of receiving, providing, receiving) in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components (e.g., storage) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
With respect to the “receiving …”, “providing …”, and “receiving …” limitations discussed above, and when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, each of the claims, taken as a whole, does not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 25-34 depend upon claim 24, and do not correct the issues set forth above. These claims essentially further the use of particular data/operations, including display of results. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 36-42 depend upon claim 35, and do not correct the issues set forth above. These claims essentially further the use of particular data/operations, including display of results. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevance is provided in at least the Abstract of each cited document.
US Patent Application Publications
Wang 2023/0078177
Multiple stage filtering may be implemented for natural language query processing pipelines. Natural language queries may be received at a natural language query processing system and processed through a query language processing pipeline. The query language processing pipeline may filter candidate linkages for a natural language query before performing further filtering of the candidate linkages in the natural language query processing pipeline as part of generating an intermediate representation used to execute the natural language query. (Abstract). FIG. 3 is a logical block diagram illustrating a natural language query processing pipeline, according to some embodiments. Natural language query processing 216 may utilize metadata for various data sets 302 in order to perform various pipeline stages, such as entity determination 310 and intermediate representation generation 320. Data asset metadata management 340 may support features to obtain or accept manually specified metadata 302, in some embodiments. For example, different data sets may be created, identified, or managed for access by natural language query processing 216. Various synonyms, alias, descriptions, possible cell values, or other metadata that describes the content of data sets beyond the existing data set provided information (e.g., data that is in addition to metadata which could be obtained from the contents of the data set and/or schema information maintained for the data set). Data set metadata management 340 may support organizing structures or groupings to identify common sets of metadata for multiple data sets (e.g., those data sets likely to be accessed for some types of natural language queries), which may be referred to as topics, in some embodiments. (para 0033).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner ROBERT STEVENS whose telephone number is (571) 272-4102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:00 - 2:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights