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 Applicant’s claims filed on May 13, 2026, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection under USC 112 set forth in the 03/24/26 office action is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 10, applicant argues “products of each predicted table size multiplied by a corresponding learned weight. As a practical matter, a human cannot perform these operations in their mind. A human cannot examine multi-year histograms for each of the N largest application tables in a database, execute a histogram threshold prediction model (which, as described in dependent claim 3, comprises a combination of k-means clustering and logistic regression) to identify the time point at which archiving behavior changes the record growth trend, generate per-table size predictions based on the segmented histogram trends, and then feed those predictions into a separately trained model that applies individually learned per- table weights to compute a total database size by summing products. The volume of data, the number of interrelated computational steps, and the requirement for trained machine learning models place these operations outside the realm of mental processes.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Generating predictions for sizes is a mental process. The machine learned models as well as the information (eg snapshots) are insignificant extra solution activities. Regardless of the volume of data being used in said prediction, the human mind is being with a computer as a tool to create a prediction using mathematical concepts.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 11, applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the amended claims are integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to a specific technical problem: predicting the future size of a software database to enable capacity planning and prevent performance degradation or storage exhaustion.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Although mathematical concepts may be eligible when additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application, the current claims do not include any additional elements that provide such an integration. Accessing a snapshot of data from a point in time for capacity planning are conventional computer functions that merely link the abstract idea to a generic computing environment. These I/O steps do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 9, applicant argues “conventional.' These statements do not address the specific claimed combination: a dual-model architecture where a first model comprising a histogram threshold prediction model processes per- table histograms and archiving data to generate per-table size predictions, and a second model trained with historical database telemetry and table-to-archiving-object mappings learns per-table weights and computes a total database size by summing products of predicted table sizes and learned weights. No evidence has been cited establishing that this specific combination was well- understood, routine, or conventional. To the extent the USPTO relies on the prior art cited under §.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Making a prediction is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Mathematical tools such as ARIMA and linear/polynomial regression models that are used in the prediction of the database size are well-understood, routine, and conventional. It would have been routine in the prediction of the size to consider the growth of the data base based on measuring the growth of tables.
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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim system (claims 1, 3-8), method (claims 10-14), and medium (15, 17-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
for each of N application tables, in a software database, that have a larger size than a remainder of the application tables in the database, wherein N is an integer, generating a prediction of a size for a corresponding application table at a future time period (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a prediction of a table size)
generating a prediction of a total size for the database at the future time period by (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a prediction a database size),
application table by its corresponding learned weight (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of summation).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15:
At least one hardware processor (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
a computer-readable medium (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
accessing a snapshot of a software database to obtain a time distribution of new records for each of N application tables and historical archiving activities (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to accessing data);
wherein the information about the number of records over time in the application table is a histogram and the first machine learned model comprises a histogram threshold prediction machine learned model that predicts a time point in the histogram at which a trend of a record size for thecorresponding application table changes
the second machine learned model having been trained using a machine learning algorithm (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling a database),
the training including inputting historical database size information, historical table size information for N application tables, and a mapping between the N application tables and archiving objects into the machine learning algorithm, and the machine leaning algorithm learning a separate weight applied to each of the N application tables based on the inputs,
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 3, 10, and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the histogram threshold prediction machine learned model is combination of a k-means and a logistic regression model (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling a database size).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4, 11, and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the first machine learned model further comprises an archived period trend prediction machine learned model that takes a first portion of the histogram for time periods prior to the predicted threshold and outputs a first trend, and a non- archived period trend prediction machine learned model that takes a second portion of the histogram for time periods after the predicted threshold and outputs a second trend (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling a database size ).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5, 12, 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the first trend and the second trend are used along with a residence time and a frequency to predict a table size (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling a size).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6, 13, and 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the residence time is calculated by subtracting the predicted threshold from a time period of a last archiving operation performed on the corresponding table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling a size).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the archived period trend prediction machine learned model utilizes an AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to modeling prediction data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claims are not rejected over prior art.
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights