DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/26/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 1 and 3 and the cancellation of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims (1- and 3-14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims (1- and 3-14) are directed to a system and method respectively. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically categorizing and parsing data.
The examiner further notes that claims (1- and 3-14) recite a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium for parsing data which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the generation and comparison of vectors, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the categorizing and parsing of data. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of categorizing and parsing data. The examiner notes that the claimed invention categorizes and parses data. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in categorizing and parsing data, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution cause a system to: receive delimiter separated value (DSV) data;
categorize a character in the DSV data into a selected layer of a plurality of layers;
wherein characters in a first layer of the plurality of layers comprise data characters;
characters in a second layer of the plurality of layers comprise delimiters; and
characters in a third layer of the plurality of layers comprise grouping symbols to group a string of characters into a semantic unit;
wherein the grouping symbols in the third layer comprise a literal grouper to group the string of characters into data characters of the semantic unit, a token definer to define a token comprising a string value in a field of the DSV data, and a nesting grouper; and
categorize a second character in the DSV data as a delimiter in the second layer responsive to: the second character being a delimiter character, a first parameter set to a false value indicating that an unclosed literal grouper was not previously encountered, a second parameter set to a false value indicating that an unclosed token definer was not previously encountered, and a third parameter set to a value indicating that an unclosed nesting grouper was not previously encountered; and
parse the DSV data according to the categorizing.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically parsing data. Categorizing and parsing data has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to categorizing and parsing data. Additionally, the categorization of data into a first defined layer, a second defined layer with defined parameters, and a third defined layer with defined grouping symbols can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the parsing of the categorized data can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of categorizing and parsing data, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the receiving of DSV data is simply a data gathering step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of categorizing and parsing data. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-14 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the parsing data of the steps of claim 1 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 3 recites the categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 4 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 5 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 6 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization and subsequent categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 7 recites the categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 8 recites the categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites the categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 10 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 11 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 12 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization and subsequent categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 13 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the defining of the third layer of categorization and subsequent categorization of data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 07/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on Page 06 that “Amended claim 1 now recites categorizing a character as a delimiter when three named state parameters simultaneously confirm the absence of any unclosed literal grouper, token definer, and nesting grouper. These are persistent machine- maintained state variables updated at character-level granularity across an arbitrarily long streaming data input - they cannot practically be performed in the human mind”. However, categorizing data based off of three defined parameters is still categorizing data which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Indeed, the claimed literal grouper, token definer, and nesting grouper can all be identified by a human (See the example shown in Figure 4 of a sequence of characters being identified as a literal grouper, token definer, and nesting grouper).
Applicants argue on Page 06 that “They also integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by solving the specific technical problem of embedded delimiter characters in real-world DSV data causing analytic system parsing failures”. However, the only additional element in the independent claim of receiving DSV data is simply a data gathering step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. The rest of the limitations in the independent claim are all mental processes that can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Improving a mental process is still a mental process.
Applicants argue on Page 06 that “Moreover, the Examiner's own…finding - that this parameter-conditioned categorization is not found in the prior art - is irreconcilable with the theory that a human can perform it mentally with pen and paper”. However, novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions (See MPEP 2106.04(I)).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 2024/0004840 issued to Vora et al. on 04 January 2024. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1 and 3-14 (e.g., methods to process DSV data).
U.S. PGPUB 2014/0280254 issued to Feichtner et al. on 18 September 2014. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1 and 3-14 (e.g., methods to process DSV data).
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 20. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mahesh Dwivedi
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2168
August 09, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
