DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/14/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Communication Device configured for” in claim 11
“Processing device is configured for” in claim 11
“Storage device is configured for” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 1:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“analyzing, [using a processing device], the at least one request;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could analyze the at least one request through evaluation.
“determining, [using the processing device], at least one operation for facilitating feature engineering for at least one machine learning model based on the analyzing;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could evaluate and determine the at least one operation.
“identifying, [using the processing device], at least one raw data source associated with the at least one machine learning model based on the determining, wherein the at least one data source comprises at least one raw data;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could observe and identify at least one raw data source associated with the at least one machine learning model.
“analyzing, [using the processing device], at least one raw data source;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could analyze the at least one raw data source.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“using a communication device” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving, using a communication device, at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application;” (insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
“performing, using the processing device, at least one operation using at least one engine based on the determining, the analyzing of the at least one request, and the analyzing of the at least one raw data source, wherein the at least one engine supports the at least one declarative language associated with the database;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“generating, using the processing device, at least one result based on the performing;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one result to the at least one client device;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and storing, using a storage device, the at least one result in at least one database.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“using a communication device” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving, using a communication device, at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application;” (well-understood, routine, conventional MPEP 2106.05(d))
“performing, using the processing device, at least one operation using at least one engine based on the determining, the analyzing of the at least one request, and the analyzing of the at least one raw data source, wherein the at least one engine supports the at least one declarative language associated with the database;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“generating, using the processing device, at least one result based on the performing;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one result to the at least one client device;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and storing, using a storage device, the at least one result in at least one database.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 5:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“performing further comprises: creating at least one feature with at least one feature value in at least one format [using the at least one engine] based on the analyzing of the at least one request,” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create at least one feature with at least one feature value in at least one format based on evaluation of the at least one request.
“wherein the creating of the at least one feature generates at least one feature metadata for the at least one feature;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create/generate feature metadata based on evaluating the feature.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“using the at least one engine” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and inserting the at least one feature metadata of the at least one feature in at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“using the at least one engine” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and inserting the at least one feature metadata of the at least one feature in at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 9:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“executing a search in the at least one feature store table based on at least one of the at least one keyword and the at least one feature definition [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could search through the feature store table based on the one keyword and feature definition.
“and sorting the at least one search result based on at least one criterion [using the at least one engine], wherein the generating of the at least one result is further based on the sorting of the at least one search result.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort the result of the search based on at least one criterion.
“generating at least one search result of the search based on the executing [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort the result of the search based on at least one criterion.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“wherein the at least one request comprises at least one of at least one keyword and at least one feature definition associated with at least one feature,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the performing further comprises: accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“wherein the at least one request comprises at least one of at least one keyword and at least one feature definition associated with at least one feature,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the performing further comprises: accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 10:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method of claim 1, wherein the performing further comprises: identifying a first feature and a second feature [using the at least one engine] based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify a first feature and a second feature based on the analyzing of the at least one request.
“analyzing the first feature, the second feature, and the at least one metadata [using the at least one engine];” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could analyze the first feature, second feature, and the at least one metadata.
“modifying the second feature using the first feature based on the analyzing of the first feature, the second feature, and the at least one metadata [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could modify the second feature using the first feature based on the analyzing.
“creating a modified second feature based on the modifying [using the at least one engine];” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create the modified second feature based on the modifying.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature for retrieving at least one feature metadata associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature based on the identifying using the at least one engine;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and replacing the second feature with a modified second feature in the at least one feature store table using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature for retrieving at least one feature metadata associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature based on the identifying using the at least one engine;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and replacing the second feature with a modified second feature in the at least one feature store table using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 11:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“[a processing device communicatively coupled with the communication device, wherein the processing device is configured for:] analyzing the at least one request;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could analyze the at least one request through evaluation.
“determining at least one operation for facilitating feature engineering for at least one machine learning model based on the analyzing;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could evaluate and determine the at least one operation.
“identifying at least one raw data source associated with the at least one machine learning model based on the determining, wherein the at least one data source comprises at least one raw data;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could observe and identify at least one raw data source associated with the at least one machine learning model.
“analyzing at least one raw data source;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could analyze the at least one raw data source.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“a processing device communicatively coupled with the communication device, wherein the processing device is configured for:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a communication device configured for: receiving at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application;” (insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
“and transmitting at least one result to the at least one client device;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“performing at least one operation using at least one engine based on the determining, the analyzing of the at least one request, and the analyzing of the at least one raw data source, wherein the at least one engine supports the at least one declarative language associated with the database;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and generating at least one result based on the performing;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and a storage device communicatively coupled with the processing device, wherein the storage device is configured for storing the at least one result in at least one database.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“a processing device communicatively coupled with the communication device, wherein the processing device is configured for:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a communication device configured for: receiving at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application;” (well-understood, routine, conventional MPEP 2106.05(d))
“and transmitting at least one result to the at least one client device;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“performing at least one operation using at least one engine based on the determining, the analyzing of the at least one request, and the analyzing of the at least one raw data source, wherein the at least one engine supports the at least one declarative language associated with the database;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and generating at least one result based on the performing;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and a storage device communicatively coupled with the processing device, wherein the storage device is configured for storing the at least one result in at least one database.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 15:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“performing further comprises: creating at least one feature with at least one feature value in at least one format [using the at least one engine] based on the analyzing of the at least one request,” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create at least one feature with at least one feature value in at least one format based on evaluation of the at least one request.
“wherein the creating of the at least one feature generates at least one feature metadata for the at least one feature;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create/generate feature metadata based on evaluating the feature.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“using the at least one engine” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and inserting the at least one feature metadata of the at least one feature in at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“using the at least one engine” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and inserting the at least one feature metadata of the at least one feature in at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 19:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“executing a search in the at least one feature store table based on at least one of the at least one keyword and the at least one feature definition [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could search through the feature store table based on the one keyword and feature definition.
“and sorting the at least one search result based on at least one criterion [using the at least one engine], wherein the generating of the at least one result is further based on the sorting of the at least one search result.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort the result of the search based on at least one criterion.
“generating at least one search result of the search based on the executing [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could sort the result of the search based on at least one criterion.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“wherein the at least one request comprises at least one of at least one keyword and at least one feature definition associated with at least one feature,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the performing further comprises: accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“wherein the at least one request comprises at least one of at least one keyword and at least one feature definition associated with at least one feature,” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the performing further comprises: accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database using the at least one engine based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 20:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method of claim 1, wherein the performing further comprises: identifying a first feature and a second feature [using the at least one engine] based on the analyzing of the at least one request;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could identify a first feature and a second feature based on the analyzing of the at least one request.
“analyzing the first feature, the second feature, and the at least one metadata [using the at least one engine];” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could analyze the first feature, second feature, and the at least one metadata.
“modifying the second feature using the first feature based on the analyzing of the first feature, the second feature, and the at least one metadata [using the at least one engine;]” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could modify the second feature using the first feature based on the analyzing.
“creating a modified second feature based on the modifying [using the at least one engine];” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)(c)). For example, a person could create the modified second feature based on the modifying.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature for retrieving at least one feature metadata associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature based on the identifying using the at least one engine;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and replacing the second feature with a modified second feature in the at least one feature store table using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“accessing at least one feature store table of at least one feature store database associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature for retrieving at least one feature metadata associated with at least one of the first feature and the second feature based on the identifying using the at least one engine;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and replacing the second feature with a modified second feature in the at least one feature store table using the at least one engine.” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miro et al.; US 20190295114 A1 (hereinafter “Miro”) in view of Skinner; Joseph et al; US 11836125 B1 (hereinafter “Joseph”) in further view of Lance Ashdown; “Oracle Database SQL Tuning Guide, 19c”.
Regarding claim 1, Miro teaches A method of facilitating feature engineering for machine learning models (Miro Paragraph 0182“in practice in all these systems a large amount of engineering effort is devoted to feature engineering. For this reason, the system has several modules which reside on different computers/virtual machines which may be chosen to serve the final list of recommendations depending on recent performance metrics.”)
Miro does not teach receiving, using a communication device, at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application;
and storing, using a storage device, the at least one result in at least one database.
Using the processing device
However, Joseph does teach receiving, using a communication device, at least one request from at least one client device, wherein the at least one request is framed in at least one declarative language associated with at least one database application; (Joseph Column 7 Paragraph 1; "the collection of the activity data 153 may be performed by the activity data collector component 152. As with the connection checker 150, the activity data collector 152 may be executed periodically to gather the activity data from each of the databases 162 that were deemed to be available by the connection checker" Joseph Column 7 Paragraph 2; "the activity data collector 152 may connect to the available databases 162 and execute queries…the collected activity data may also include different types of database operations, requests, or statements (e.g. SQL statements)" Examiner notes that the databases receives a request from a client device/activity data collector using a communication device/connection checker, wherein the request is framed in a declarative language/SQL statements associated with a database application)
and storing, using a storage device, the at least one result in at least one database. (Joseph Column 7 Paragraph 2; "the query results may be stored in output files 156, which may be external to the databases 162.")
Using the processing device (Joseph Column 28 Paragraph 3; “computer system that can be used to implement one or more portions of DDMS that collects activity data from databases and generates a database dependency graph from the activity data, according to some embodiments… computer system 1000 includes one or more processors 1010 coupled to a system memory 1020 via an input/output (I/O) interface 1030.” Examiner notes cited section describes a processing device to perform claimed actions.)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Miro and Joseph. Miro teaches updating user feature vectors based on metadata and comments using machine learning. Joseph teaches taking in SQL requests and stores information regarding the request and database status. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Miro and Joseph to collect the request information to show to the users “In another respect, embodiments of the DDMS may provide a rich set of graphical user