DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/20/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-12 have been amended, claims 13-15 have been canceled, and new claims 16-23 have been added. Currently, claims 1-12 and 16-23 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Applicant on 05/20/2025 has been considered. A copy of the considered IDS is enclosed with this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to show necessary textual labels of features or symbols in Figs. 1-4 as described in the specification. For example, placing a label, "structured data object", with element 100 of Fig. 1, would give the viewer necessary detail to fully understand this element at a glance. A descriptive textual label for each numbered element in these figures would be needed to better understand these figures without substantial analysis of the detailed specification. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be labeled in the drawing. Optionally, the applicant may wish to include a table next to the present figure to fulfill this requirement. See 37 CFR 1.84(n)(o), recited below:
"(n) Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.
(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used, or may be required by the Examiner, where necessary for understanding of the drawing, subject to approval by the Office. They should contain as few words as possible."
Specification
The amendment to the Specification filed in the Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/20/2025 is accepted and entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 16-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, two instances of limitation “the blocks” in line 2 and line 3 should be “the plurality of blocks” for being consistent in claim language.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “The method claim 1” in line 1 should be “The method of claim 1”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the blocks” in line 2 should be “the plurality of blocks” for being consistent in claim language.
Regarding claim 7, the term “one or more block variable instance” and the term “corresponds” in line 4 should be corrected accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, two instances of limitation “the blocks” in line 2 and line 3 should be “the plurality of blocks” for being consistent in claim language.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the blocks” in line 3 should be “the plurality of blocks” for being consistent in claim language.
Regarding claim 23, two instances of limitation “the blocks” in line 4 and line 5 should be “the plurality of blocks” for being consistent in claim language.
Other dependent claims are objected for incorporating the informalities of the objected independent claims 1 and 16 upon which they depend correspondingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blocks" in line 2, the limitation “the execution variables” in line 10, and the limitation “that matched block variable” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding the relation between limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 4 and limitation “an execution variable” in line 7, and the relation among “block variable instances” in line 2 and “value of that matched block variable” in line 13 (i.e., it is unclear whether a block variable instance indicates a block variable or a value of a block variable).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the block variables" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the respective blocks" in line 1 and the limitation “the questions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It should be noted that an instance of limitation “the questions” in line 2 of claim 8 should be amended accordingly.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the identified first nested blocks" in line 3, the limitation “the matched block variables” in line 4, and the limitation “that respective first nested block” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the number of blocks" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the blocks" in line 2, the limitation “the execution variables” in line 10, and the limitation “that matched block variable” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding the relation between limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 4 and limitation “an execution variable” in line 7, and the relation among “block variable instances” in line 2 and “value of that matched block variable” in line 13 (i.e., it is unclear whether a block variable instance indicates a block variable or a value of a block variable).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the block variables" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the respective blocks" in line 1 and the limitation “the questions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the blocks" in line 4, the limitation “the execution variables” in line 12, and the limitation “that matched block variable” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding the relation between limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 6 and limitation “an execution variable” in line 9, and the relation among “block variable instances” in line 4 and “value of that matched block variable” in line 15 (i.e., it is unclear whether a block variable instance indicates a block variable or a value of a block variable).
Other dependent claims are rejected as incorporating and failing to resolve the deficiencies of the rejected independent claims 1 and 16 upon which they depend correspondingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing/matching one or more execution variables of a stored routine with one or more block variables of a plurality of blocks of a structured data object.
The claims recite an abstract idea of applying/executing a stored routine to a plurality of blocks of a structured data object based on broadly recited steps of identifying one or more first nested blocks and executing the stored routing by assigning a respective value to the execution variables if a block variable match for the respective execution variable is found in the first nested block and recursively searching outwards for a block variable match if there being no block variable match for the respective first nested block, which are broadly recited steps/concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and directed to mental processes grouping of abstract ideas . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other additional elements including genetic computer components and common computer functionality (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying) for implementing the abstract idea are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements include only generic/common computer components (e.g., memory, processor, program instructions, etc.) and generic/common computer functions (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying), which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Abstract idea analysis as follows:
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant claims, claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 16-22 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors (i.e., a machine), and claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions (i.e., an article of manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
Step 2a Prong 1 (claims 1, 16 and 23):
The following limitations recited in claims 1, 16 and 23 are abstract ideas that fall under mental processes:
identifying/identify one or more first nested blocks, each first nested block comprising a block variable match for an execution variable (the step of identifying as broadly recited without specifying “how” can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, given a structured data object comprising a plurality of blocks with one or more block variable instances and a stored routine including one or more execution variables, a human can observing/comparing the execution variable of the stored routine and block variables associated with blocks of the structured data object to identify some first nested blocks as recited),
executing/execute the stored routine, wherein the executing comprising for each first nested block (the step of executing the stored routine for each first nested block as broadly recited can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, through observing/comparing the execution variables of the stored routine and block variables associated with the identified nested blocks):
assigning a respective value to the execution variables, wherein the assigning comprises, for each respective one of the execution variables (the step of assigning as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper):
in response to a block variable match for the respective execution variable in the first nested block, assigning a value of the matched block variable to the respective execution variable (the step of assigning as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper), and
in response to there being no block variable match for the respective execution variable in the first nested block, recursively searching outwards from the first nested block for a block variable match for the respective execution variable (the step of searching outwards as broadly recited without specifying “how” can be mentally performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper for illustrating on paper).
All the limitations above are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2 (Claims 1, 16 and 23):
The following limitations in claims 1, 16 and 23 are additional elements:
a plurality of blocks of a structured data object, wherein the blocks comprise one or more block variable instances, wherein the blocks are configured as one or more block nests (these elements describe a structured data object, which directed to mere data/information),
wherein the stored routine, when executed, implements the processing of one or more execution variables (these elements describe the stored routine including one or more execution variables, which is directed to mere data/information),
the system comprising one or more processors (this element is directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components), and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method for applying a stored routine to a plurality of blocks of a structured data (these elements are directed to generic computer components and/or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or insignificant extra-solution activity for implementing or applying the abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2b (Claims 1, 16 and 23):
The following limitations in claims 1, 16 and 23 are additional elements:
a plurality of blocks of a structured data object, wherein the blocks comprise one or more block variable instances, wherein the blocks are configured as one or more block nests (these elements describe a structured data object, which directed to mere data/information),
wherein the stored routine, when executed, implements the processing of one or more execution variables (these elements describe the stored routine including one or more execution variables, which is directed to mere data/information),
the system comprising one or more processors (this element is directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components), and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method for applying a stored routine to a plurality of blocks of a structured data (these elements are directed to generic computer components and/or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, claims 2 and 17 depend on claims 1 and 16 respectively. As such, claims 2 and 17 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1 and 16.
In addition, claims 2 and 17 include additional elements:
wherein the plurality of blocks comprises duplicate blocks (this element specifying the plurality of blocks, which is directed to mere additional data/information)
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, claims 3 and 18 depend on claims 1 and 16 respectively. As such, claims 3 and 18 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1 and 16.
In addition, claims 3 and 18 include additional elements:
wherein each block is defined by a predetermined template (this element specifying each block as being defined by a template, which is directed to mere additional data/information)
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, claims 4 and 19 depend on claim 3 and 18 respectively. As such, claims 4 and 19 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 3 and 18.
In addition, claims 4 and 19 include additional elements:
generating/generate one or more of the blocks using the predetermined template (this step of generating a data block/object based on a template as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to a mental step/process (i.e., abstract idea), which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, claims 5 and 20 depend on claims 1 and 16 respectively. As such, claims 5 and 20 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1 and 16.
In addition, claims 5 and 20 include additional elements:
providing/provide a user interface (this step of providing a user interface as broadly recited is directed a generic routine function of a computer system (e.g., providing an interface for interacting with a user)),
receiving/receive user input from the user interface (this step of receiving user input as broadly recited is directed a generic routine function of a computer system (e.g., accepting/obtaining data input from a user)), and
setting/set or updating/update an instance of one or more of the block variables based on user input (this step of setting or updating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by replacing a value by another value).
These are additional elements directed to mental step/process and insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, claims 6 and 21 depend on claims 5 and 20 respectively. As such, claims 6 and 21 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 5 and 20.
In addition, claims 6 and 21 include additional elements:
updating/update a display of the user interface based on the user input (this step of updating a display as broadly recited is directed to a routine functionality of the computer for interacting with a user (e.g., displaying different information based on different user input).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, claims 7 and 22 depend on claims 6 and 21 respectively. As such, claims 7 and 22 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 6 and 21.
In addition, claims 7 and 22 include additional elements:
wherein for each of the respective blocks: the structured data objects is associated with one or more question (these elements specifying on each block, which is directed to mere additional data/information),
one or more of the questions are displayed to the user (the displaying as broadly recited is directed to mere data outputting or insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity), and
one or more block variable instance of the respective block corresponds to a respective user input answer to a respective one of the one or more questions (these elements are directed to mere additional data/information).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information and/or insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on claim 7. As such, claim 8 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 7.
In addition, claim 8 includes additional elements:
wherein updating the display comprising changing the questions displayed to the user (this element as broadly recited being directed to display data or mere data outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 8. As such, claim 9 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 8.
In addition, claim 9 includes additional elements:
wherein changing the questions displayed to the user comprising displaying an additional question (this element as broadly recited being directed to display data or mere data outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends on claim 5. As such, claim 10 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 5.
In addition, claim 10 includes additional elements:
outputting a report comprising: for one or more of the identified first nested blocks, a respective section of the report comprising information based on the matched block variables associated with that respective first nested block (this element as broadly recited being directed to displaying report/data or mere data outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 depends on claim 10. As such, claim 11 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 10.
In addition, claim 11 includes additional elements:
wherein content of the report is dynamically updated based on user input (this step of updating a display or content of a report as broadly recited is directed to a routine functionality of the computer for interacting with a user (e.g., displaying different information based on different user input).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 12 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 12 includes additional elements:
wherein the number of the blocks can be dynamically altered via user input (this step of altering/updating data based on a user input as broadly recited is directed to a routine functionality of the computer for interacting with a user (e.g., accepting command/input/data from a user)).
These are additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Remarks
It should be noted that there is no prior art rejection for claims 1-12 and 16-23.
The closest prior art of record, Convent et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0016814), teaches a method/system for enabling access to data from database(s) consisting of one or more tables having rows and columns of data by invoking a stored procedure (e.g., a program including SQL statements) through a stored procedure call (see Abstract and [0023]-[0024]). The stored procedure can be invoked with input parameters (e.g., query terms) and return one or more result sets and/or output parameters (e.g., an average of the values of all rows that satisfy a query condition) to a data structure/object that can be returned to the client application (see [0010]-[0013] and [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights