DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 11/15/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (filed 11/15/2022 and 07/05/2024) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 11/15/2022 are accepted for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-9:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determining a total similarity value between the first column and the second column based on at least one of a metadata similarity value, a semantic similarity value, and a unit of measurement similarity value”; “adding the first column and the second column to a cluster if the total similarity value is less than a threshold value”; “generating a new column to add to the cluster using a feature engineering function, the new column includes a new title and a new value, the new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the first value of the first column and the second value of the second column”; and “adding the new column to the dataset” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“obtaining a dataset including at least a first column and a second column, the first column includes a first title and a first value and the second column includes a second title and a second value” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the dataset with the added new column is designed to improve a predictive accuracy in a first machine learning model compared to the predictive accuracy of a second machine learning model operating on a given data set without the new column” is an additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “extracting a first set of metadata from the first column and a second set of metadata from the second column”, “determining whether a first data type from the first set of metadata and a second data type from the second set of metadata are equivalent”, “based on the first data type and the second data type being equivalent, determining a data similarity value from a first data distribution from the first set of values and a second data distribution from the second set of values, wherein the first data distribution and the second data distribution includes at least one of a variance, a standard deviation, a mean, a mode, a distribution of data, a shape of data, a correlation, a probability, a covariance, a skewness, a minimum, and a maximum”, and “generating the metadata similarity value based on the first data distribution and the second data distribution” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “converting the first title into a first vector including first values representative of first words in the first title and the second title into a second vector including second values representative of second words in the second title”, “determining a distance between the first vector and the second vector using a similarity function”, and “generating the semantic similarity value based on the distance between the first vector and the second vector” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the semantic similarity value is generated based additionally on a first unit of measurement for the first value in the first column and a second unit of measurement for the second value in the second column” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “predicting a first unit of measurement for the first value and a second unit of measurement for the second value using a language model”, “converting the first unit of measurement into a first unit measurement vector and the second unit of measurement into a second unit measurement vector”, “determining a distance between the first unit measurement vector and the second unit measurement vector”, and “generating the unit of measurement similarity value based on the distance between the first unit measurement vector and the second unit measurement vector” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the new value is generated by performing a mathematical operation associated with the feature engineering function using the first value and the second value” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “the total similarity value is determined by adding each of the metadata similarity value, the semantic similarity value, and the unit of measurement similarity value” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations “determining a third similarity value between the third column and one of the first column and the second column based on at least one of a second metadata similarity value, a second semantic similarity value, and a second unit of measurement similarity value”, “adding the third column to the cluster if the total similarity value is less than the threshold value”, “generating a second new column to add to the cluster using the feature engineering function, wherein the second new column includes a second new title and a second new value, the second new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the third value of the third column, the second value of the second column, and the first value of the first column”, and “adding the second new column to the dataset” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The limitation “obtaining a dataset including a third column, wherein the third column includes a third title and a third value” is an insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 10-15:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 10-15 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 10 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determining a total similarity value between the first column and the second column based on at least one of a metadata similarity value, a semantic similarity value, and a unit of measurement similarity value”; “adding the first column and the second column to a cluster if the total similarity value is less than a threshold value”; “generating a new column to add to the cluster using a feature engineering function, the new column includes a new title and a new value, the new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the first value of the first column and the second value of the second column”; and “adding the new column to the dataset” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 10 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“obtaining a dataset including at least a first column and a second column, the first column includes a first title and a first value and the second column includes a second title and a second value” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The elements “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, “instructions”, and “a system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-15, the claims correspond to claims 2-4, 6, and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 16-20:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 16-20 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 16 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determining a total similarity value between the first column and the second column based on at least one of a metadata similarity value, a semantic similarity value, and a unit of measurement similarity value”; “adding the first column and the second column to a cluster if the total similarity value is less than a threshold value”; “generating a new column to add to the cluster using a feature engineering function, the new column includes a new title and a new value, the new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the first value of the first column and the second value of the second column”; and “adding the new column to the dataset” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 16 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“obtaining a dataset including at least a first column and a second column, the first column includes a first title and a first value and the second column includes a second title and a second value” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The elements “a system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, and “instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 17-20, the claims correspond to claims 2-4 and 6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20220318224) in view of Brewster et al. (US 20170262491).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Thompson teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a dataset including at least a first column and a second column, the first column includes a first title and a first value and the second column includes a second title and a second value ([0026-0027], [0105], [0107-0108], and [0581]);
determining a total similarity value between the first column and the second column based on at least one of a metadata similarity value, a semantic similarity value, and a unit of measurement similarity value ([0395-0397], [0568], [0636], [0639], and [0642-0643);
adding the first column and the second column to a cluster if the total similarity value is less than a threshold value ([0026], [0105-0106], and [0353]);
generating a new column to add to the cluster using a feature engineering function, the new column includes a new title and a new value, the new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the first value of the first column and the second value of the second column ([0353-0355], [0437], and [0502]).
Thompson, however, does not explicitly teach the following additional limitations:
Brewster teaches adding the new column to the dataset ([0020] and [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thompson with Brewster because it would have provided the enhanced capability for computing final columns for the one or more tables and/or one or more tabular data arrangements.
As to Claim 2:
Thompson teaches the dataset with the column is designed to improve a predictive accuracy in a first machine learning model compared to the predictive accuracy of a second machine learning model operating on a given data set without the column ([0522], [0529], and [0568]).
Thompson, however, does not explicitly teach, Brewster teaches the column is the added new column ([0020] and [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thompson with Brewster because it would have provided the enhanced capability for computing final columns for the one or more tables and/or one or more tabular data arrangements.
As to Claim 3:
Thompson teaches the metadata similarity value is determined by:
extracting a first set of metadata from the first column and a second set of metadata from the second column ([0024-0027]); determining whether a first data type from the first set of metadata and a second data type from the second set of metadata are equivalent ([0165], [0197], and [0521]); based on the first data type and the second data type being equivalent, determining a data similarity value from a first data distribution from the first set of values and a second data distribution from the second set of values, wherein the first data distribution and the second data distribution includes at least one of a variance, a standard deviation, a mean, a mode, a distribution of data, a shape of data, a correlation, a probability, a covariance, a skewness, a minimum, and a maximum ([0370] and [0379-0380]); and generating the metadata similarity value based on the first data distribution and the second data distribution ([0395-0397]).
As to Claim 4:
Thompson teaches the semantic similarity value is determined by: converting the first title into a first vector including first values representative of first words in the first title and the second title into a second vector including second values representative of second words in the second title ([0567-0568], [0581], and [0616]); determining a distance between the first vector and the second vector using a similarity function ([0605-0608], and [0614]); and generating the semantic similarity value based on the distance between the first vector and the second vector ([0638-0639] and [0643-0644]).
As to Claim 5:
Thompson teaches the semantic similarity value is generated based additionally on a first unit of measurement for the first value in the first column and a second unit of measurement for the second value in the second column ([0277], [0418], and [0505-0507]).
As to Claim 6:
Thompson teaches the unit of measurement similarity value is determined by: predicting a first unit of measurement for the first value and a second unit of measurement for the second value using a language model ([0522], [0529], and [0568]); converting the first unit of measurement into a first unit measurement vector and the second unit of measurement into a second unit measurement vector ([0567-0568], [0581], and [0616]); determining a distance between the first unit measurement vector and the second unit measurement vector ([0605-0608], and [0614]); and generating the unit of measurement similarity value based on the distance between the first unit measurement vector and the second unit measurement vector ([0638-0639] and [0643-0644]).
As to Claim 7:
Thompson teaches the new value is generated by performing a mathematical operation associated with the feature engineering function using the first value and the second value ([0416], [0505], and [0593]).
As to Claim 8:
Thompson teaches the total similarity value is determined by adding each of the metadata similarity value, the semantic similarity value, and the unit of measurement similarity value ([0568], [0602], and [0612]).
As to Claim 9:
Thompson teaches obtaining a dataset including a third column, wherein the third column includes a third title and a third value ([0026-0027], [0105], [0107-0108], and [0581]);
determining a third similarity value between the third column and one of the first column and the second column based on at least one of a second metadata similarity value, a second semantic similarity value, and a second unit of measurement similarity value ([0395-0397], [0568], [0636], [0639], and [0642-0643); adding the third column to the cluster if the total similarity value is less than the threshold value([0026], [0105-0106], and [0353]);generating a second new column to add to the cluster using the feature engineering function, wherein the second new column includes a second new title and a second new value, the second new value determined using the feature engineering function by acting on at least one of the third value of the third column, the second value of the second column and the first value of the first column ([0353-0355], [0437], and [0502]).
Thompson, however, does not explicitly teach, Brewster teaches adding the second new column to the dataset ([0020] and [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Thompson with Brewster because it would have provided the enhanced capability for computing final columns for the one or more tables and/or one or more tabular data arrangements.
As to Claims 10-15:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 11-16 are the same as Claims 1-4, 6, and 7, except Claims 11-16 are computer-readable storage media Claims and Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are method Claims.
As to Claims 16-20:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-4 and 6 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 16-20 are the same as Claims 1-4 and 6, except Claims 16-20 are system Claims and Claims 1-4 and 6 are method Claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144