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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19312689 filed 08/28/2025 is a Continuation of 18596517 , filed 03/05/2024 ,now U.S. Patent # 12423274
Child data
None
Last updated by opsgusr on 08/28/2025 12:57:51
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,274 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications include similar concept including identifying step names of the database operation based on input and modifying the command to be executed in the database environment. 274 included other limitations such as wherein the reference table comprises allowed commands implementable by service and wherein the allowed commands comprise a format recognized by the service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art to remove the additional elements to arrive the same invention.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite “determining, based on the one or more parameters, one or more step names associated with the database management operation; and determining a command associated with the database management operation based on the one or more step names and allowed commands implementable by a database management service” which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recite processing circuitry and memory storing instructions executed by processor to perform the method. These are generic computer components and program which the components and program use to perform abstract ideas.
“Receiving a user input indicating one or more parameters and a request to perform a database management operation” is the process of using the information for information retrieval.
“Performing the database management operation, via the database management service, using the command” is a execution of query in the database to retrieve information.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. 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: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, 10 and 16, the limitation:
“The request is received via a command line interface (CLI)” is further defined what request is and interface is an interface to receive the input.
As to claims 3, 11 and 17, the limitation:
“The one or more parameters comprise a name of an action associated with the command” is further defined what one or more parameters is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 4, 12 and 18, the limitation:
“A trained language model is used for determining the one or more step names of the database management operation based on the one or more parameters” is mental process.
As to claims 5, 13 and 19, the limitation:
“’The allowed commands are characterized by a format recognizable by the database management service” is only further defined what command format is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 6, 14 and 20, the limitation:
“The command associated with the database management operation is included in the allowed commands” is further defined what command is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshmukh et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0092594 A1) in view of Iizuka (Pub. No. US 2015/0067697 A1).
As to claim 1, Deshmukh discloses a method comprising:
receiving a user input indicating one or more parameters and a request to perform a database management operation (the client system may present (e.g., via client application 132) any graphical user (e.g., GUI etc.) or other interface (e.g., command line prompts, menu screens, etc.) to receive commands from users and interact with the virtual relation server…) (paragraph 0022);
determining, based on the one or more parameters, one or more step names associated with the database management operation (relation name) (paragraph 0036);
determining a command associated with the database management operation based on the one or more step names and allowed commands implementable by a database management service (SQL) (paragraph 0036); and
performing the database management operation, via the database management service, using the command (at step 640, the SQL statement constructor generates a new version number for the virtual relation. At step 650, the SQL constructor begins a transaction against type system 212. At step 660, the SQL statement constructor builds a SQL statement…) (paragraph 0036)
Deshmukh discloses command changes in database management. Deshmukh does not step name. However, Iizuka discloses the step name (the procedure table 220 include flow ID 221, procedure number 222, procedure names 223, procedure types 224, operation subject host names 225, parameter 226, changed CIs 227, depending Cls 228, and depending flows 229) (paragraph 0087).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify teaching of Deshmukh to include step name as disclosed by Iizuka to identify command.
As to claim 2, Deshmukh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request is received via a command line interface (CLI) (command line) (paragraph 0022)
As to claim 3, Deshmukh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a name of an action associated with the command (columns to drop, columns to add, existing columns for which the data type is to be changed…) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 5, Deshmukh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the allowed commands are characterized by a format recognizable by the database management service (SQL statement) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 6, Deshmukh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the command associated with the database management operation is included in the allowed commands (allowed command is SQL) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 8, Iizuka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the operation is associated with a configuration item (CI) (Paragraph 0087).
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Desmunkh discloses a system, comprising: processing circuitry (execution device) (paragraph 0067); and memory (computer readable medium) (paragraph 0067), accessible by the processing circuitry(execution device) (paragraph 0067), and storing instructions (instructions) (paragraph 0067) that, when executed by the processing circuitry(execution device) (paragraph 0067), cause the processing circuitry (execution device) (paragraph 0067) to perform operations.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Desmukh discloses a non-transitory, computer readable medium (computer readable medium) (paragraph 0067) comprising instructions (instructions) (paragraph 0067) that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry (execution device) (paragraph 0067) to perform the operations.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
6. Claim(s) 4, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desmukh et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0092594 A1) in view of Iizuka (Pub. No. US 2015/0067697 A1) and further in view of Sherman et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0129198 A1).
As to claim 4, Desmukh discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for wherein a trained language model is used for determining the one or more step names of the database management operation based on the one or more parameters. However, Sheman discloses a trained language model is used for determining the one or more step names of the database management operation based on the one or more parameters (an HP setting is defined by learning physical parameters of a user preferred setup, such as study identifier, window level, zoon pan, procedure name, and so on, along with one or more advanced setup to be performed on the exam to generate a final report…) (paragraph 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to include a trained language model is used for determining the one or more step names of the database management operation based on the one or more parameters as disclosed by Sherman in order to provide correct command.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
7. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshmukh et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0092594 A1) in view of Iizuka (Pub. No. US 2015/0067697 A1) and further in view of Caution et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0357645 A1).
As to claim 7, Deshmukh discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for wherein determining the command associated with the database management service comprises identifying one or more matches in the allowed commands and generating one or more implementable commands from the one or more matches. However, Caution discloses determining the command associated with the database management service comprises identifying one or more matches in the allowed commands and generating one or more implementable commands from the one or more matches (a first user and second user authorize execution of a secure command by receiving a first voice input from a first mobile device 400-1 used by the first user 1, identifying the first user at a sounding processing unit 200 by finding a match fo the first voice input in a sound command database…) (paragraph 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Deshmukh to include identifying one or more matches in the allowed commands and generating one or more implementable commands from the one or more matches as disclosed by Caution in order to obtain command for execution.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights