DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited reference W3schools.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (system), claim 10 recites a process (method), claim 19 recites a manufacture (non-transitory machine-readable medium).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 19) recites “determining a subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, the determining comprising identifying at least one argument that is described by the first plurality of data items and by the second plurality of data items” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
For example, a person using mental processes could determine subsets of transactional data (i.e., query processing data) that matches a certain cost (i.e., first plurality of data items) and destination (i.e., second plurality if data items).
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “an analytics computing system, comprising: at least one processor programmed to perform operations comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 19 recites “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 19) recites “by the runtime engine” merely indicating a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 19) recites “receiving query data describing a query, the query data comprising an indication of a subject tuple; accessing, by a runtime engine executing at the at least one processor, analytics code, the analytics code being compiled object code configured to be executed by the runtime engine, and the analytics code comprising first proposition data corresponding to the subject tuple, the first proposition data comprising: proposition head data describing the subject tuple; and proposition body data describing at least one proposition condition, the at least one proposition condition comprising a first proposition body tuple and a second proposition body tuple, and relationship data describing a conjunction relationship between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple; executing the analytics code by the runtime engine, the executing of the analytics code comprising: accessing, by the runtime engine, query processing data, the query processing data comprising data associated with the first proposition body tuple and data associated with the second proposition body tuple, the data associated with the first proposition body-tuple comprising a first plurality of data items meeting the first proposition body tuple, and the data associated with the second proposition body tuple comprising a second plurality of data items meeting the second proposition body tuple” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 19) recites “sending query response data, the query response data being based on the subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention. Adding a final step of sending data does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined merely indicating a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)).
The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 19) recites “sending query response data, the query response data being based on the subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 recites a machine (system), claim 11 recites a process (method), claim 20 recites a manufacture (machine-readable medium).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherit the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “the query data further comprising a value for a first argument of the subject tuple, the subset of the data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising a value for a second argument of the subject tuple” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 3 and 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 recites a machine (system), claim 12 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite “determining a second subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, the second subset of the query processing data also being based at least in part on the second value for the second argument of the subject tuple” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 4 and 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 recites a machine (system), claim 13 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherit the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “the subset of the data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising a plurality of values for a first argument of the subject tuple and a plurality of values for a second argument of the subject tuple” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 5 and 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 recites a machine (system), claim 14 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite “the first proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a first proposition matrix, the second proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a second proposition matrix, and the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition is true comprising executing a matrix operation using the first proposition matrix and the second proposition matrix” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 6 and 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 recites a machine (system), claim 15 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite “the proposition body data further describing the subject tuple, the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising: evaluating the first proposition body tuple, and evaluating the subject tuple recursively based at least in part on the evaluation of the first proposition body tuple” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 7 and 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 recites a machine (system), claim 16 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherit the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “accessing second proposition data that also corresponds to the subject tuple, the second proposition data comprising second proposition head data describing the subject tuple and second proposition body data describing at least one second proposition condition; accessing second query processing data, the second query processing data being based at least in part on the second proposition body data, and determining a subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true, the query response data also being based on the subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 8 and 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 recites a machine (system), claim 17 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherit the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “the relationship between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple indicating a conjunction between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple” mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 9 and 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 recites a machine (system), claim 18 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherit the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “the analytics code further comprising at least one operation using at least one argument of the first proposition body tuple and at least one argument of the second proposition body tuple, the operations further comprising using the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, and evaluating the at least one operation, the query response data also being based at least in part on a result of the evaluating of the at least one operation” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miseldine et al (US 20190197185 A1) hereafter Miseldine in view of Merker (US 20200311084 A1) hereafter Merker in view of W3schools
Regarding claim 1, Miseldine teaches an analytics computing system, comprising:
at least one processor programmed to perform operations comprising: receiving query data describing a query, the query data comprising an indication of a subject tuple (Para 0006, the query processor includes a query receiver configured to receive the NLQ and model the NLQ as a tuple of entities including at least a subject entity and an intention entity); accessing, by a runtime engine executing at the at least one processor, analytics code , and the analytics code comprising first proposition data corresponding to the subject tuple (Para 0053, model the NLQs as basic entity tuples [Subject (or Topic), Intent, Criteria]), the first proposition data comprising: proposition head data describing the subject tuple (Para 0053, model the NLQs as basic entity tuples [Subject (or Topic), Intent, Criteria]); and proposition body data describing at least one proposition condition, the at least one proposition condition comprising a first proposition body tuple and a second proposition body tuple, and relationship data describing a conjunction relationship between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple (Para 0095, a set of query tuples representing a subject—intention—criteria relationships: Context, [Subject, Intention, Criteria]); executing the analytics code by the runtime engine, the executing of the analytics code comprising: accessing, by the runtime engine, query processing data, the query processing data comprising data associated with the first proposition body tuple and data associated with the second proposition body tuple; and determining, by the runtime engine, a subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true (Para 0096, Service and resource discovery services provided by service discovery module 350 in query processor 300 can map this model of the query to matching system assets (i.e., services) to answer the query); and sending query response data, the query response data being based on the subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true (Para 0121, The NLQ processing solutions can call the service, and return results to the user as an answer to the query).
Miseldine does not appear to explicitly teach the analytics code being compiled object code configured to be executed by the runtime engine.
In analogous art, Merker teaches the analytics code being compiled object code configured to be executed by the runtime engine (Para 0021, pre-compiled code may correspond to executable, machine code which executes during runtime to provide the query or operation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine to include the teaching of Merker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform database management, as taught by Merker (Para 0001, The subject matter described herein relates to database management, and more particularly, to the generation of query execution plans).
Miseldine in view of Merker does not appear to explicitly teach the data associated with the first proposition body tuple comprising a first plurality of data items meeting the first proposition body tuple, and the data associated with the second proposition body tuple comprising a second plurality of data items meeting the second proposition body tuple; the determining comprising identifying at least one argument that is described by the first plurality of data items and by the second plurality of data items: and sending query response data, the query response data being based on the subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true.
In analogous art, W3schools teaches the data associated with the first proposition body tuple comprising a first plurality of data items meeting the first proposition body tuple, and the data associated with the second proposition body tuple comprising a second plurality of data items meeting the second proposition body tuple (Page 1, SELECT * FROM Customers WHERE Country = 'Germany' AND City = 'Berlin'); the determining comprising identifying at least one argument that is described by the first plurality of data items and by the second plurality of data items (Page 1, Result: Number of Records: 1); and sending query response data, the query response data being based on the subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true (Page 1, Alfreds Futterkiste, Maria Anders, Obere Str. 57, Berlin, 12209, Germany). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker to include the teaching of W3schools. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to filter records, as taught by W3schools (Page 2, The AND and OR operators are used to filter records based on more than one condition).
Regarding claim 2, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools further teaches the system of claim 1, the query data further comprising a value for a first argument of the subject tuple, the subset of the data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising a value for a second argument of the subject tuple (Para 0017, an incoming natural language query (NLQ) is modelled as a tuple of entities (e.g., [Subject, Intent, Criteria])).
Regarding claim 3, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools further teaches the system of claim 2, teaches the operations further comprising: receiving second query data describing a second query, the second query data comprising an indication of the subject tuple and a second value for the second argument of the subject tuple; determining a second subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, the second subset of the query processing data also being based at least in part on the second value for the second argument of the subject tuple; and sending second query response data, the second query response data being based at least in part on the second subset of the query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, and the second query response data comprising a second value for the first argument of the subject tuple (Para 0026, An end-user may, for example, enter a query in a text field (e.g., text field 144) in UI 142 to retrieve or access data in database 120. Query processor 134 may process the query using services and native calls of backend system 132 to create, select, or and modify data in application 140/database 120).
Regarding claim 4, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools further teaches the system of claim 1, the subset of the data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising a plurality of values for a first argument of the subject tuple and a plurality of values for a second argument of the subject tuple (Para 0053, query processor 300 may model the NLQs as basic entity tuples [Subject (or Topic), Intent, Criteria], where each tuple element is resolved to database object model references. Each tuple element can be then mapped to a particular service call which can perform the intention on the subject with the given criteria).
Claim 10 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the medium claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 5-9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools further in view of Amundsen et al (US 6507835 B1) hereafter Amundsen
Regarding claim 5, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools does not appear to explicitly teach the first proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a first proposition matrix, the second proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a second proposition matrix, and the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition is true comprising executing a matrix operation using the first proposition matrix and the second proposition matrix.
In analogous art, Amundsen teaches the first proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a first proposition matrix, the second proposition body tuple being represented at the analytics computing system as a second proposition matrix, and the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition is true comprising executing a matrix operation using the first proposition matrix and the second proposition matrix (Para 24, When the operands to a generalized scalar product are two vectors arranged in another manner, or when the operands to a generalized scalar product are a matrix and a vector, or two matrices, the result can be a vector or matrix, based on the arrangement of the operands and their relative orientations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools to include the teaching of Amundsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate query results, as taught by Amundsen (Abs, Query results and statistics regarding them are generated using a novel representation of an n-attribute relation as an order n relational tensor).
Regarding claim 6, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools does not appear to explicitly teach the proposition body data further describing the subject tuple, the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true comprising: evaluating the first proposition body tuple; and evaluating the subject tuple recursively based at least in part on the evaluation of the first proposition body tuple.
In analogous art, Amundsen teaches the proposition body data further describing the subject tuple, the determining of the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true (Para 27, A data-representing relational tensor may be formed for all attributes of the relation upon which the query operates, or may be formed for only a subset of the attributes of the relation) comprising: evaluating the first proposition body tuple (Para 102, Then in step 392 tensor T2 is evaluated to determine whether T2 has the selected coordinate along the same order N); and evaluating the subject tuple recursively based at least in part on the evaluation of the first proposition body tuple (Para 102, If N is less than the order of the tensors T1 and T2, then in step 398, the value of N is incremented, and processing returns to step 390 to select a coordinate in T1 along the next order of T1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools to include the teaching of Amundsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate query results, as taught by Amundsen (Abs, Query results and statistics regarding them are generated using a novel representation of an n-attribute relation as an order n relational tensor).
Regarding claim 7, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools does not appear to explicitly teach the accessing of the analytics code further comprising: accessing second proposition data that also corresponds to the subject tuple, the second proposition data comprising second proposition head data describing the subject tuple and second proposition body data describing at least one second proposition condition; accessing second query processing data, the second query processing data being based at least in part on the second proposition body data; and determining a subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true, the query response data also being based on the subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true.
In analogous art, Amundsen teaches the accessing of the analytics code further comprising: accessing second proposition data that also corresponds to the subject tuple, the second proposition data comprising second proposition head data describing the subject tuple and second proposition body data describing at least one second proposition condition (Para 119, This tensor is identical to that discussed above with reference to FIG. 2B, and has orders for the "City/State" and "Postal Code" attributes); accessing second query processing data, the second query processing data being based at least in part on the second proposition body data (Para 18, The second attribute of the relation of FIG. 2A, namely the postal code attribute, is associated with a second dimensional order of the tensor, in this case, illustrated as the columns); and determining a subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true, the query response data also being based on the subset of the second query processing data for which the at least one second proposition condition is true (Para 30, the relational selection tensor is built from a plurality of atomic operations that must each be true for the user query criterion to be met, by forming intermediate relational selection tensors representing each such criterion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools to include the teaching of Amundsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate query results, as taught by Amundsen (Abs, Query results and statistics regarding them are generated using a novel representation of an n-attribute relation as an order n relational tensor).
Regarding claim 8, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools does not appear to explicitly teach the relationship between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple indicating a conjunction between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple.
In analogous art, Amundsen teaches the relationship between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple indicating a conjunction between the first proposition body tuple and the second proposition body tuple (Para 17, FIG. 2B illustrates a relational tensor representation of the tuples shown in table format in FIG. 2A. As can be seen in FIG. 2B, this relational tensor representation takes the general form of a matrix). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools to include the teaching of Amundsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate query results, as taught by Amundsen (Abs, Query results and statistics regarding them are generated using a novel representation of an n-attribute relation as an order n relational tensor).
Regarding claim 9, Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools does not appear to explicitly teach the analytics code further comprising at least one operation using at least one argument of the first proposition body tuple and at least one argument of the second proposition body tuple, the operations further comprising using the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, and evaluating the at least one operation, the query response data also being based at least in part on a result of the evaluating of the at least one operation.
In analogous art, Amundsen teaches the analytics code further comprising at least one operation using at least one argument of the first proposition body tuple and at least one argument of the second proposition body tuple, the operations further comprising using the subset of query processing data for which the at least one proposition condition is true, and evaluating the at least one operation, the query response data also being based at least in part on a result of the evaluating of the at least one operation (Para 30, the relational selection tensor is built from a plurality of atomic operations that must each be true for the user query criterion to be met, by forming intermediate relational selection tensors representing each such criterion, and forming a relational tensor product of the intermediate relational selection tensors to form the relational selection tensor representing the plurality of criteria of the user query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miseldine in view of Merker in view of W3schools to include the teaching of Amundsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate query results, as taught by Amundsen (Abs, Query results and statistics regarding them are generated using a novel representation of an n-attribute relation as an order n relational tensor).
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 7, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 8, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166