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 .
In response to the Applicant’s election filed on 08/03/2026, the claims 28-34 and 41-53 are pending, claims 21-27, 35-40 are withdrawn as result of the cancelation of claims 1-20 and new additional of claims 41-53. The Applicant should cancel the withdrawn claims.
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.
With respect to claims 28, 41 and 48, the claim, as written, focuses on manipulating, formatting, and reorganizing data structures without specifying a concrete, technical improvement to computer functionality.
Section 101 Analysis (Alice/Mayo Framework)
The claims are directed to a statutory category. The claim begins with "A method comprising...", which places it within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Process).
Step 2A, The claims are directed to a judicial exception (an Abstract Idea).
Under current Federal Circuit precedent, this claim is directed to an abstract idea falling into the Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes / Data Manipulation groupings.
Mental Process / Mathematical Organization: The steps—receiving, parsing, identifying a flag, materializing (which in text transformation means rewriting syntax), and outputting—represent an algorithmic text-processing technique.
Lack of Technical Solution: The claim describes a result-oriented method. It fails to detail how the script is parsed or how the materialization improves memory, processing speeds, or underlying database engine capabilities at a technical architectural level.
Step 2B: the claims do not recite an "Inventive Concept" (Significantly More).
The steps rely entirely on generic, routine, and conventional computer tasks:
Parsing strings or scripts is a foundational computer science technique.
Reading a flag/indicator and modifying text based on that flag is a routine software instruction.
Outputting a text file (the materialized SQL script) is standard post-solution activity.
Because the claim simply automates a text/logical reorganization task using generic computing processes, it does not add "significantly more" to transcend the abstract idea
With respect to claims 29, 42 and 49, based on the court, the claim is treated as basic text parsing and name comparison as an abstract idea. Such Human can read a script, breaking into words (tokens) and check if a name starts with a specific prefix using pen and paper. Courts use the Alice framework to decide if a claim describes a fundamental economic practice, data manipulation or mental process. Parsing and matching text usually falls into this category.
With respect to claim 30,43 and 50, the claims is directed abstract ideas since using a queue or stack to track and process items is generally classified as an abstract idea under patent eligibility rules. It can be mental processes to tracking item, sorting them by a prefix, and handling them one by one is a logical method that a person can do with a pen and paper. Further, Naming a standard tool like a queue or stack does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible if it just uses ordinary computer functions.
With respect to claims 31, 44 and 51, the claims is directed abstract ideas since parsing a SQL script by tracking Common Table Expressions (CTE) using a stack is an abstract algorithmic concept that describes how to solve a structural parsing problem. It defines a mental blueprint for tracking state (nesting level) rather than the concrete implementation details of string manipulation or regular expressions.
With respect to claims 32, 45 and 52, the claims is directed abstract ideas since this database conversion step is typically classified as a generic data manipulation or mental process, making it an abstract idea unless it achieves a specific, unconventional technical improvement to computer functionality. Data manipulation: converting one standard query structure, like a common table Expression, into another standard command, like a create table as select statement, resembles routine information process. Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, courts ask if a claim is directed to a judicial exception such as a mental process or mathematical/data concept. Purely organizing data formatting without transforming computer architecture usually triggers this exception.
With respect to claim 33, 46 and 53, the claims is directed abstract ideas since method of organizing, managing or manipulating data-including generating identifier for data structure. With limitation of claim, without further technical limitations, It may be seen as directed to the abstract idea of data identification and storage. There are no additional element that make technical solution to a technical problem.
With respect to claims 34, and 47 the claims is directed abstract ideas since the claim recites all relation in element, manipulating data and can be done by human.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 28-34 and 41-53 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of Patent No. 12,332,894. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. . 12,332,894 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. . 12,332,894 claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving a structured query language (SQL) script containing a plurality of Common Table Expression (CTE) statements;
parsing the SQL script to identify CTE statements flagged for materialization;
materializing at least one of the identified CTE statements to generate a materialized SQL script; and
outputting the materialized SQL script.
A method comprising:
receiving a structured query language (SQL) script, the SQL script including a plurality of Common Table Expression (CTE) statements, the plurality of CTE statements including at least one nested CTE statement;
flattening the plurality of CTE statements to generate a flattened SQL script;
materializing at least one of the plurality of CTE statements to generate a materialized SQL script; and
executing the materialized SQL script via a query engine
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-34 and 41-53 are allowances contingent upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and obvious double patenting.
Claims 28-34 and 41-53 would be allowed. (if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101, and obvious double patenting and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims)
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 28-34 and 41-53, Hui et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0060816 A1) discloses receiving a structured query language (SQL) script containing a plurality of Common Table Expression (CTE) statements (i.e., “The Statement (3) fragments comprise the generated XQuery expression that maps the original XML document to a simplified document based on the target XML model. The Statement (2) fragment is the XMLTable function invocation that joins with the table (in this case, XMLDOCTABLE) that contains the original XML document, and wraps around the XQuery expression to output the transformed document as an XML column inside a common table expression (i.e., an inline virtual table”(0093)); parsing the SQL script to identify CTE statements flagged for materialization (i.e., “When a database query is executed against an SQL/XML view, the database query engine may extract pieces of XML data from the original XML documents and convert them to relational format.”(0086)); create SQL/hierarchical language views or to materialize the data in relational table (i.e., “Artifacts may be generated according to embodiments so as to create SQL/hierarchical language views or to materialize the data in relational tables. Although examples and embodiments described herein utilize XML, embodiments are not so limited, as embodiments may be configured to operate with any hierarchical language capable of achieving similar results, including, but not limited to, JSON and YAML.”(0023)) but Hui et al. does not disclose identity CTE statements flagged for materialization and materializing at least one of the identified CTE statements to generate a materialized SQL script; and outputting the materialized SQL script.
Citation of Pertinent References
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent to Jiang et al. disclose Integrated development environment terminal, platform server and medium, U.S. Pat. 11,994,973 B2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 September 29, 2026
