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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 10 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection fails to state a prima facie grounds of invalidity under section 101 because the grounds fail to consider the claim as a whole under Step 2A. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is considered under Step 2A Prong Two, which asks whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong One, on the other hand, asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, and evaluates individual limitations. MPEP § 2106.04(a) (“Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above.”).
Applicant argues that “sampling” does not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The grounds of rejection states that “sampling” is similar to “filtering.” This is an explanation as to why the limitation sets forth or describes a judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(I). The burden then shifts to Applicant to rebut this. Applicant provides no rebuttal. Applicant argues that the grounds of rejection do not analogize to prior art cases. This is not required. Id. Although a specific implementation of sampling may integrate the idea of sampling into a practical application, “utilizing sampling to downsample” is not a specific implementation. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that the claimed “evaluating” is not practically performable in the human mind because a human cannot utilize a flat hash map structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Evaluating whether a column and value matches a predicate value is practically performable in the human mind. Utilizing a flat hash map structure is using a computer as a tool to perform this process, without details as to how the flat hash map structure is used to evaluate, is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, which recites a mental process. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). That being said, given the overlap in considerations between MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(f), multithreaded evaluation using a hash map is examined as an additional element. A computer is still being invoked as a tool to perform the mental process of evaluation. However, the particular parallelization strategy of claim 21 integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer in a specific way.
Applicant argues that updating a display based on a user selection improves technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updating a display based on a user selection is not analogous to the invention of Data Engine Technologies. See Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007-09 (Fed. Cir. 2018). No specific interface is claimed. Rather, the display, collecting user input and updating the display, is more like that of OIP Technologies. See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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.
As per claims 1, 7, and 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “upon selection of a dataset from the data warehouse instance for visualization, the selection being based upon an instruction received at the control plane of the data analytics environment, the dataset comprising a plurality of string attribute columns, a plurality of numerical attribute columns, a target numerical column, and a list of target column values, automatically determining, as a plurality of segments of the data, one or more groupings of data associated with the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what group data belongs to. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “said determining of the plurality of segments of the data utilizing sampling to downsample the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, as “sampling” is a process similar to “filtering” because both entail a process of choosing what is in the sample and not in the sample, and what is filtered out and not filtered out. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The limitation, “converting each value of the plurality of string attribute columns and each value of the plurality of numerical attribute columns to an integer,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “converting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what integer corresponds to what value. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “evaluating each combination of converted string attribute columns and converted attribute values utilizing a plurality of predicate filters,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “evaluating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the integer corresponds to a predicate filter. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “wherein the pruning according to a first filter discards a first set of the determined plurality of segments of data, each of the first set of the determined plurality of segments of data comprising a number of rows less than a predetermined number of rows,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “discarding” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether data satisfies a filter. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “wherein the determined plurality of segments of data are further pruned according to a second filter, wherein the pruning according to the second filter discards a second set of the determined plurality of segments of data, each of the second set of the determined plurality of segments of data comprising a score less than a predetermined minimum score,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “discarding” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a score of the data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing, at a computer comprising a microprocessor, a data analytics environment operable to display data visualizations associated with datasets,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the data analytics environment comprising a control plane, a data plane, wherein the data analytics is communicatively coupled to a data warehouse instance, the data warehouse instance being provisioned by the control plane in association with a user and including a schema within the data warehouse instance associated with the user, based upon instructions received at the control plane,” merely describes a technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, that the evaluating is performed by “utilizing a flat hash map structure executed via a plurality of threads utilizing the microprocessor,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of evaluating on a computer because the claim invokes a computer in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “the pruned determined plurality of segments of data are displayed via a user interface of the data analytics environment,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein, based upon interactions at the user interface, the display of the pruned determined plurality of segments of data is updated according to a selection of an attribute of the target numerical column,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to perform the judicial exception of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in a generic networked computing environment, as well as no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of computer-stored data using a control plane and data plane. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “providing, at a computer comprising a microprocessor, a data analytics environment operable to display data visualizations associated with datasets,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of data gathering. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “the data analytics environment comprising a control plane, a data plane, wherein the data analytics is communicatively coupled to a data warehouse instance, the data warehouse instance being provisioned by the control plane in association with a user and including a schema within the data warehouse instance associated with the user, based upon instructions received at the control plane,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0073]-[0076], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, that the evaluating is performed by “utilizing a flat hash map structure executed via a plurality of threads utilizing the microprocessor,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [000167], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “the pruned determined plurality of segments of data are displayed via a user interface of the data analytics environment,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “wherein, based upon interactions at the user interface, the display of the pruned determined plurality of segments of data is updated according to a selection of an attribute of the target numerical column,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2, 8, and 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “evaluating each combination of converted string attribute columns and converted attribute values utilizes a plurality of predicate filters and is performed in parallel,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing the personal behavior of a group of people simultaneously performing a mental process of evaluating each combination of converted string attribute columns and converted attribute values utilizes a plurality of predicate filters. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3, 9, and 15:
The limitation, “wherein the determining of the plurality of segments associated with the dataset is based on the scoring,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “scoring” encompasses a person, e.g., subjectively forming a judgment as to numerical values associated with a given data and respective segments.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claims 4, 10, and 16:
The limitation, “wherein the determining of the plurality of segments associated with the dataset is based on penalizing certain data of the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “penalizing” encompasses a person, e.g., subjectively forming a judgment that a particular grouping requires fewer predicates to define. Specification [000173].
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claims 5, 11, and 17:
The limitation, “wherein the set of the plurality of segments of interest the dataset is determined based upon a second scoring, the second scoring being applied to only the determined plurality of segments of interest within the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “scoring” encompasses a person subjectively forming a judgment as to a numerical value as to how interesting a given segment is.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claims 6, 12, and 18:
The limitation, “wherein the second scoring comprises a reflection of an estimate of a level of interest of each segment of the determined plurality of segments of interest,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “estimating” encompasses a person subjectively forming a judgment as to how interesting a given segment is.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claims 19-20:
The limitation, “determining a range of discrete target numerical column values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person subjectively forming a judgment as to the range.
The limitation, “selecting an equal number of rows for each discrete target numerical column value in the determined range,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person subjectively forming a judgment as to the rows to select.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach the abstract idea of converting each value of the plurality of string attribute columns and each value of the plurality of numerical attribute columns to an integer and evaluating each combination of converted string attribute columns and converted attribute values utilizing a plurality of predicate filters. The parallelization strategy of claim 21 integrates this abstract idea into a practical application by improving a computer performing the evaluating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159