CTNF 19/272,721 CTNF 90953 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 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 Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,282 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants as the independent claims of the instant invention are broader claims than the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,282 as shown in the comparison table below . Instant Application Claims Patent No. 12,423,282 Claim 1. A system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: identifying a root data object in at least one database; recursively executing queries to identify, in the at least one database, additional data objects with reference relationships to the root data object or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the queries until a predetermined condition is met; generating an object reference structure based on the reference relationships; causing presentation of a graphical representation of the object reference structure; receiving user input comprising a purge instruction associated with at least part of the object reference structure; and triggering, based on the user input, execution of a data purge to purge data from the at least one database according to the purge instruction. Claim 1. A system comprising: at least one memory that stores instructions; and one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising: receiving, via a user interface, first user input identifying a root data object; in response to receiving the first user input: executing a primary query to identify, in a database, first data objects with reference relationships to the root data object, and recursively executing secondary queries to identify, in the database, additional data objects with reference relationships to one or more of the first data objects or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the secondary queries until a predetermined condition is met; generating an object reference structure based on the reference relationships among the root data object, the first data objects, and the additional data objects; causing presentation, via the user interface, of a graphical representation of the object reference structure; receiving, via the user interface, second user input comprising a purge instruction associated with at least part of the object reference structure; and in response to receiving the second user input, triggering execution of a data purge to purge data from the database according to the purge instruction. Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one database comprises a relational database, and each data object from among the root data object and the additional data objects is mapped to a respective table in the at least one database. Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the database comprises a relational database, and each data object from among the root data object, the first data objects, and the additional data objects is mapped to a table in the database. Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation represents the object reference structure as a diagram that comprises a plurality of interconnected nodes, each of the plurality of interconnected nodes represents a respective one of the root data object and the additional data objects, and the root data object is represented by a root node of the plurality of interconnected nodes in the diagram. Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation represents the object reference structure as a diagram that comprises a plurality of interconnected nodes, each of the plurality of interconnected nodes represents a respective one of the root data object, the first data objects, or the additional data objects, and the root data object is represented by a root node of the plurality of interconnected nodes in the diagram. Claim 4. The system of claim 3, the operations further comprising: identifying, for a data object represented in the object reference structure, one or more attributes comprising at least one of a nullability, a variant data object, an object path, a data type, or a functional component; and causing presentation of the one or more attributes in association with a corresponding node of the plurality of interconnected nodes that represents the data object in the diagram. Claim 4. The system of claim 3, the operations further comprising: identifying, for a data object represented in the object reference structure, one or more attributes comprising at least one of a nullability, a variant data object, an object path, a data type, or a functional component; and causing presentation, via the user interface, of the one or more attributes in association with a corresponding node of the plurality of interconnected nodes that represents the data object in the diagram. Claim 7. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: identifying a data object from among the additional data objects as a child data object of a parent data object from among the root data object and the additional data objects; determining a nullability of the parent data object of the child data object within a context of the child data object; and causing presentation of the nullability together with the graphical representation of the object reference structure. Claim 6. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: identifying a data object from among the first data objects and the additional data objects as a child data object of a parent data object from among the root data object, the first data objects, or the additional data objects; determining a nullability of the parent data object of the child data object within a context of the child data object; and causing presentation, via the user interface, of the nullability together with the graphical representation of the object reference structure. Claim 8. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a user, a value for the root data object; using the value in addition to at least a subset of data objects from among the root data object and the additional data objects to establish a purge scope associated with the purge instruction; and executing the data purge based on the purge scope. Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the first user input or the second user input further comprises a value for the root data object, the operations further comprising: using the value in addition to at least a subset of data objects from among the root data object, the first data objects, and the additional data objects to establish a purge scope associated with the purge instruction; and executing the data purge based on the purge scope. Claim 12. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving further user input to adjust at least one of the object reference structure or the graphical representation of the object reference structure; and adjusting a purge scope associated with the purge instruction based on the further user input. Claim 11. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, via the user interface, third user input to adjust at least one of the object reference structure or the graphical representation of the object reference structure; and adjusting a purge scope associated with the purge instruction based on the third user input. Claim 14. The system of claim 1, wherein the reference relationships among the root data object and the additional data objects include one or more data object dependencies and one or more nested object relationships. Claim 13. The system of claim 1, wherein the reference relationships among the root data object, the first data objects, and the additional data objects include one or more data object dependencies and one or more nested object relationships. Claim 15. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: generating, from a database schema of the at least one database, a list of selectable root data objects; and receiving, from a user, a selection of the root data object from the list of selectable root data objects. Claim 14. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: generating, from a database schema of the database, a list of selectable root data objects, wherein the first user input comprises a selection of the root data object from the list of selectable root data objects. Claim 16 (corresponds to claim 1) Claim 15 Claim 20 (corresponds to claim 1) Claim 18 Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carston (US 2014/0101133) discloses a recursive query is received that comprises a first select statement with a seed select statement and a second select statement with a recursive reference, wherein the recursive query further identifies at least two columns in at least one table, wherein the at least two columns have parent-child relationships represented by nodes in a graph, wherein the graph represents the organization of values in rows in the at least one table; a target recursion depth is calculated for the graph based on a fanout of the graph; the target recursion depth is calculated by summing the fanout at each recursion depth of the graph multiplied by a number of nodes at each recursion depth of the graph; an estimated number of rows that the recursive query will return is estimated based on the target recursion depth; and a selected query plan is selected from among a plurality of query plans based the estimated number of rows, but fails to disclose recursively executing secondary queries to identify, in the database, additional data objects with reference relationships to one or more of the first data objects or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the secondary queries until a predetermined condition is met. Elliott (US 2020/0073971) discloses generating a visual representation of a network data structure for display in a user interface, wherein the user interface is adapted to receive inputs from a user to view the visual representation and manipulate the represented network data structure, but fails to disclose recursively executing secondary queries to identify, in the database, additional data objects with reference relationships to one or more of the first data objects or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the secondary queries until a predetermined condition is met. Furusho (US 2009/0106298) discloses insertion and deletion of partial trees using a parent-child relationship definition array in which the parent-child relationship among nodes configuring a tree data structure is not represented by a parent-child relationship, which associates a child node with a parent node, but is represented by a child-parent relationship, which associates a parent node with a child node, but fails to disclose recursively executing secondary queries to identify, in the database, additional data objects with reference relationships to one or more of the first data objects or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the secondary queries until a predetermined condition is met. Wei (US 2024/0045847) discloses generating an edge list based on a traversal of a tree graph; generating an expanded tree of the tree graph using the edge list in one or more iterations based, at least in part, on performing one or more self join operations during each iteration of the one or more iterations; receiving, from a client device, a query that identifies a target node in the tree graph; searching the expanded tree for the target node; generating a list of one of child paths of the target node or parent nodes of the target node based on the searching; and transmitting the list to the client device, but fails to disclose recursively executing secondary queries to identify, in the database, additional data objects with reference relationships to one or more of the first data objects or to any other additional data object identified in a previous one of the secondary queries until a predetermined condition is met. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.). 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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. /Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 2 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 3 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 4 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 5 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 6 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 7 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 8 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/272,721 Page 9 Art Unit: 2166
Prosecution Insights