DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE and the amendment filed 26 May 2026.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-8 are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 11-17 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 18-20 are directed toward a computer program product (manufacture). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined inf the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (mental process)
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
identifying a plurality of tables comprising user data for one or more users stored across a plurality of data sources (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user observing tables to identify a plurality of tables having user data across a plurality of data sources)
grouping… using a clustering algorithm, the user data for the one or more users from the plurality of data tables into a clustering space (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating user data from one or more users, using a clustering algorithm, and grouping the user data)
filtering at least some of the user data from the plurality of tables based on a filter criterion and determining one or more clusters of tables from a remainder data of the plurality of tables (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgment on a plurality of tables to filter the data into a data set and a remainder set)
generating… a plurality of links between the one or more clustering tables, wherein each link of the plurality of links is representative of a correlation between a respective pair of columns from respective clusters of tables of the one or more clusters of tables, wherein each link connecting the pair of columns is generated based on the respective pair of columns comprising data satisfying a respective relatedness criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user making a judgement to identify a link between columns of tables based upon a relatedness criterion (evaluation))
classifying… each link of the plurality of links into one or more classes according to a respective link classification criterion, the respective link classification criterion being a respective data privacy requirement for the user data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgement to link the tables when they satisfy a criterion (judgement) of the user and associated the tables with a label based upon an evaluation)
identifying… in response to a target request to remove data subject to the data privacy requirement, one or more pairs of columns in the one or more clusters of tables including data subject to the data privacy requirement based on one or more links, each of the one or more links including labels associated therewith indicative of satisfying the data privacy requirement (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an observation to identify links, subject to an evaluation of data privacy requirements, based on labels associated with each link)
extracting, in response to the target request, one or more pairs of columns of data from the cluster of tables based on the identified one or more tasks (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an evaluation to determine one or more pairs of columns associated with the task for extraction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a processor
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that are executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using a neural network
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a processor
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that are executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using a neural network
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
storing data represented in the pair or columns in a temporary data store
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The additional elements of storing data represented in a pair of columns in a temporary data store includes elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites:
verifying the classification of the link using a sample join query (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgement to verify the classification using a sample join query (evaluation))
in response to a determination that the link comprises a positive link (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a determination (judgement))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
storing data represented in the pair of columns in a final linkage inventory
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The additional elements of storing data represented in a pair of columns in a final linkage inventory includes elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites:
verifying the classification of the link using a sample join query (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgement to verify the classification using a sample join query (evaluation))
in response to a determination that the link comprises a false-positive link (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a determination (judgement))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
generating feedback data associated with the false-positive link
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The additional elements of generating feedback data associated with the false-positive link includes elements which are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements of wherein the neural network comprises a Siamese neural network.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitation:
wherein the neural network comprises a Siamese neural network
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements of adjusting the neural network based upon a result of verifying the classification of the link using a join query.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitation:
adjusting the neural network based upon a result of verifying the classification of the link using a join query
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements of introducing augmented data into the neural network, wherein the neural network is adjusted based on a result of classifying the augmented data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitation:
introducing augmented data into the neural network, wherein the neural network is adjusted based on a result of classifying the augmented data
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements wherein the neural network has been applied to past links between other pairs of columns other than the pair of column.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitation:
wherein the neural network has been applied to past links between other pairs of columns other than the pair of column
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (adjusting/retraining a neural network based upon data). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined inf the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (mental process)
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites:
determining… a data subgroup comprising a subgroup of data tables of a group of data tables by filtering at least some of the data from the group of data tables based on a first criteria (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user observing tables to identify a cluster of tables from a plurality of tables)
grouping… using a clustering algorithm, the data subgroup into a cluster space (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating user data from one or more users, using a clustering algorithm, and grouping the user data)
determining… correlated data comprising a correlation between data from respective data tables of the subgroup of data tables, wherein the correlated data satisfy a cluster criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user making a judgement to identify a link between columns of tables)
generating… a plurality of links between the subgroup of data tables, each link correlating a pair of columns between respective subgroups of data tables based on satisfying a relatedness criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user making a judgement to identify a link between columns of tables based upon a relatedness criterion (evaluation))
classifying… the correlated data in the pair of columns associated with each link into one or more classes according to classification criterion, wherein, in response to the correlated data satisfying the classification criterion, a label indicative of each of the one or more classes is associated with the correlated data, the classification criterion being a regulatory compliance criterion associated with user data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgement to link the tables when they satisfy a criterion (judgement) of the user and associated the tables with a label based upon an evaluation)
identifying, in response to a data removal request, a subset of the correlated data subject to the regulatory compliance criterion from the data subgroup based on the labels associated with the links for the correlated data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an observation to identify links, subject to an evaluation of data privacy requirements, based on labels associated with each link)
extracting the identified subset of the correlated data from the data subgroup, the extracted subset of the correlated data comprising one or more pair of columns data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an evaluation to determine one or more pairs of columns associated with the task for extraction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a computer system comprising a processor
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using machine learning
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using machine learning). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a computer system comprising a processor
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using machine learning
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using machine learning). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
generating, by the computer system, a graphical user interface representative of the correlated data
This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of generating, by the computer system, a graphical user interface representative of the correlated data amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the group of data tables are received via the graphical user interface
This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the group of data tables are received via the graphical user interface,” which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the correlated data comprise respective metadata associated with the group of data tables
This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to extra-solution activity because it is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the correlated data comprise respective metadata associated with the group of data tables,” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites:
wherein the classification criterion is based in part on a group of classification factors, and wherein the group of classification factors are weighted… according to respective relative importance (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user making an observation to classify tables based upon the evaluation of classification factors, including a judgement regarding the relative importance of factors)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Additionally, the claim recites:
using machine learning
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using machine learning). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using machine learning
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using machine learning). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Additionally, the claim recites:
wherein the group of classification factors comprises at least one of table name, column name, and data type
This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to extra-solution activity because it is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the group of classification factors comprises at least one of table name, column name, and data type,” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the group classification factors comprise at least one of column length, last access time, and timestamp
This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to extra-solution activity because it is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the group classification factors comprise at least one of column length, last access time, and timestamp,” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined inf the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (mental process)
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
determining a data cluster of tables by filtering data from a plurality of tables based on a first criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user observing tables to identify a cluster of tables from a plurality of tables)
determining… a link between a pair of columns from respective tables of the cluster of tables, wherein the link between the pair of columns satisfies a relatedness criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user making a judgement to identify a link between columns of tables)
classifying… the link according to a link classification criterion, wherein the link satisfies the link classification criterion, wherein a label indicative of the link satisfying the link classification criterion is associated with the link (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an observation to identify links, subject to an evaluation of data privacy requirements, based on labels associated with each link)
extracting, in response to the target request, the pair of columns from the data cluster based on the label associated with the link (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing an evaluation to determine one or more pairs of columns associated with the task for extraction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a computer-program product comprising a computer-readable medium having program instructions embedded therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using a neural network
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations:
a computer-program product comprising a computer-readable medium having program instructions embedded therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the claim recites:
using a neural network
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites:
receiving a target for the link based upon a data privacy compliance requirement (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user purging columns based upon an observation)
in response to the link being determined to satisfy the link classification criterion, purging data associated with the link from the plurality of tables (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user purging columns based upon an evaluation that items are subject to a privacy requirement)
Claim 20:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites:
in response to the link being determined to satisfy the link classification criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a user performing a judgement to verify the classification (evaluation))
Step 2B, Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements:
adjusting the link classification criterion using a tuning model, wherein the tuning model has been generated using machine learning applied to past link classification information representative of past links of other pairs of columns in other tables other than the plurality of tables
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Additionally, the claim recites:
adjusting the link classification criterion using a tuning model, wherein the tuning model has been generated using machine learning applied to past link classification information representative of past links of other pairs of columns in other tables other than the plurality of tables
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s initial argument is based upon the assertion that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they “add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (page 2)” by enabling the “improvement of the functionality of backend computing systems by enabling the system, at runtime, to efficiently extract (or retrieve) data, content, etc., without a large storage or computing burden that slows response times to user (pages 3-4).”
While the examiner appreciates this argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted by the examiner that the additional limitations with respect to independent claim 1 include:
a processor
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that are executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations
using a neural network
In this instance, with respect to “a processor” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…,” the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, these elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, with respect to “using a neural network,” the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a neural network). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
In this instance, the argued improvements are directed to the mental process performed using a computer with a technological solution. In this instance, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Further, it is noted that mental processes may be performed using a computer but are not technological. In this instance, the argued improvements are directed to the mental process performed using a computer. Improvements directed toward the mental process performed using a computer is not a technological solution.
For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights