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 Amendment filed on 07/30/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19-20 and 22-23 have been amended, and claims 13-15 were previously canceled. Currently, claims 1-12 and 16-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims are effective to overcome the claim objections presented in the previous Office action. Therefore, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s concern with respect to whether the amendment to the Specification presented in their Preliminary Amendment filed May 20, 2025 was entered, Examiner has checked on the issue and been confirmed that it will be entered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026), with respect to the objection to the drawings for failing to show necessary textual labels of features or symbols, that all of the depicted elements are adequately identified in the Specification in a manner such that one of skill in the art would understand the drawings without having to undertake substantial analysis of the detailed specification, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Drawings should be used to illustrate and provide an overview of components, elements, functions, or steps of a system or a process without the need to reference to Specification. Drawings including only general symbols (e.g., boxes, lines, shapes, arrows, etc.) and references in numbers and/or letters are hard to understand what is illustrated or described without checking the Specification for all details related to the referenced numbers/letters.
Therefore, the objection to the drawings is maintained.
In view of claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 11-12), with respect to 101 rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-23 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the previous 101 rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-23 has been withdrawn.
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."
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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether/how the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 9 is related to the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 6. Also, regarding the recitation “identifying, by a processor, one or more first nested blocks of the one or more block nests, each first nested block comprising a block variable instance match for one or more executable variable” in lines 7-9, it is unclear whether only one first nested block is identified for each block nest, and/or whether a first nested block can include any nested block comprising a block variable instance match in a block nest (i.e., the identifying step does not specify the first nested block as an innermost nested block in the block nest and comprising a block variable instance match). In addition, the limitation “the one or more execution variables of the first nested block” in line 13 appear to be unclear because “the one or more execution variables” is associated with “the stored routine” rather than a nested block. In the context of the claim, it is believed that a respective value assigned to each of the one or more execution variables is from the first nested block or of the first nested block. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
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 user” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the questions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is also an instance of “the questions” in line 1 of claim 9, which should be amended accordingly.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the identified first nested blocks" in line 3, the limitation “the matched block variable instances” 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.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether/how the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 9 is related to the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 6. Also, regarding the recitation “identifying, by a processor, one or more first nested blocks of the one or more block nests, each first nested block comprising a block variable instance match for one or more executable variable” in lines 8-10, it is unclear whether only one first nested block is identified for each block nest, and/or whether a first nested block can include any nested block comprising a block variable instance match in a block nest (i.e., the identifying step does not specify the first nested block as an innermost nested block in the block nest and comprising a block variable instance match). In addition, the limitation “the one or more execution variables of the first nested block” in lines 13-14 appear to be unclear because “the one or more execution variables” is associated with “the stored routine” rather than a nested block. In the context of the claim, it is believed that a respective value assigned to each of the one or more execution variables is from the first nested block or of the first nested block. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the block variable instances" 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 user” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear whether/how the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 11 is related to the limitation “one or more execution variables” in line 8. Also, regarding the recitation “identifying, by a processor, one or more first nested blocks of the one or more block nests, each first nested block comprising a block variable instance match for one or more executable variable” in lines 10-12, it is unclear whether only one first nested block is identified for each block nest, and/or whether a first nested block can include any nested block comprising a block variable instance match in a block nest (i.e., the identifying step does not specify the first nested block as an innermost nested block in the block nest and comprising a block variable instance match). In addition, the limitation “the one or more execution variables of the first nested block” in lines 15-16 appear to be unclear because “the one or more execution variables” is associated with “the stored routine” rather than a nested block. In the context of the claim, it is believed that a respective value assigned to each of the one or more execution variables is from the first nested block or of the first nested block. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
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.
Remarks
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
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]).
Convent et al. fails to anticipate, suggest or render obvious a method for applying a stored routine to a plurality of blocks of a structured data object as similarly recited in independent claims 1, 16 and 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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