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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6-8-2023 and 3-27-2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig.1 contains blocks that are not labeled with text to be readily identifiable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “module” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claimed modules are merely “configured” to perform certain task. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 seems to be directed to a program or software per se thus not patent eligible.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
An analysis of subject matter eligibility is presented below.
Step 1: claim 1 recites a method in the preamble thus is one of the statutory categories of invention,
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 1 recites "acquiring ..." "selecting..." under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation by a human user, but for the recitation of a generic "electronic generation device". If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes' grouping of abstract idea (concept performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a "electronic generation device" does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 13 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely includes the addition elements of "generating a structure...," “storing...” or processes of data manipulation, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 limitation "sending the extracted law..." and "if no extraction data is receive..." do not amount to significant more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations do not improve any technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, do not add specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, do not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, do not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment because the "content obtaining system" is merely used as tools in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) to implement an abstract idea.
Claim 2 merely describes the received message, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 merely describes the set of databases, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 merely describes a “if” scenario, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 merely describes storing information, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 merely describes a task, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 merely describes the extraction rules, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 merely describes acquiring additional data, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 merely describes receiving a request, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 merely recites a software program, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 essentially recites limitations similar to claim 1 in form of a device thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 12 merely describes the set of actions, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 13 merely describes the task, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Although the dependent claims contain more details than their parent claim, the limitations amount to mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. No claim is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blom et al (US 20200026711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blom substantially discloses, teaches or suggests a method for generating, from a set of databases, a structured database associated with a task, the method being implemented by an electronic generation device and comprising:
acquiring a list of required action(s) during the task, and a group of data extraction rules from the set of databases, each extraction rule including a first identifier of a class of the structured database and a law for extracting data from the set of databases, each rule being associated with one or more required action(s) (see at least [0004]);
generating a structure of the structured database including at least one class for each first identifier of a distinct class, and a class of unsuccessful queries (see at least [0079]);
selecting of the extraction rule(s) from among the acquired group of extraction rules based on a required action selected by a user from among the list of required, action(s) (see at least [0079]);
sending the extraction law included in each selected extraction rule to the set of databases, and receiving the extracted data from the databases as a result of that sending (see at least [0026]);
storing the or each received extracted data in the class of the structured database corresponding to the first identifier of the class associated with the extraction law in response to which the data was received (see at least [0026]); and
for each extraction law sent, if no extraction data is received in response from the set of databases, associating the law with the class of unsuccessful queries (see at least [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, following said sending, no extracted data is received from the set of databases if the or each message(s) received from the set of databases only verify at least one of the following: an error message is received from the set of databases; and a message including an empty data field is received from the set of databases (see at least [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the set of databases comprises at least two databases, and during said sending, the extraction law included in each selected extraction rule is sent to each database (see at least [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein if the databases provide at least two different extracted data in response to a same sent extraction law, the at least two extracted data are, during said storage, stored in the same class of the structured database, corresponding to the first identifier of the class associated with the extraction law (see at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein following said sending, each received data comprises:
a set of data extracted from a database, in response to the sent extraction law; a set of second identifier(s) of the class of the database from which the set of extracted data originated (see at least [0037],
each second identifier corresponding to a respective class of the database from which at least one respective set of extracted data originated (see at least [0037]); and
a group of data extraction criteria from the database from which the set of extracted data is derived, wherein the set of second identifier(s) and the group of criteria are specific to each database and are generated from the sent extraction law (see at least [0033]),
wherein during said storage, the set of second identifier(s), the group of criteria and the set of data are stored in the class corresponding to the first identifier of the class associated with the extraction law (see at least [0033]), and
wherein during said storage, at least one first relationship between an extracted data and a second identifier of the class is further stored in the class of the structured database (see at least [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during said acquisition, invariant data during the course of the task is additionally acquired, and during said sending, at least one sent extraction law is completed by at least one invariant data of the task (see at least [0098]).
Regarding claim 9, Blom further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, after said storage or said association: retrieving a request from a user (see at least [0038]), and note the recited “if the request is related to an extraction law associated with the class of unsuccessful queries, communicating a message to the user indicating that the data responding to the request is missing from the set of databases” merely seems to be hypothetical not a required limitation. Nevertheless Blom clearly suggests such communication when Blom shows communication network (see at least [0056], [0105]).
Claim 10 merely corresponds to a computer program for performing the method of claim 1 thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 11 merely corresponds to a device for performing the method of claim 1 thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
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) 6, 7, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blom et al (US 20200026711 A1), in view of Hochwarth et al (US 20190311632 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Blom does not specifically show the method according to claim 1, wherein the task is flying an aircraft.
However it is customary for tasks to include flying an aircraft as shown by Hochwarth (see at least [0050]);
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Blom in order to provide an open interface to a flight management system using data gathered from disparate sources.
Regarding claim 7, Blom/Hochwarth further teaches or suggests the method according to claim 6, wherein the extraction rules associated with the required action of diverting comprise the extraction laws (see at least Hochwarth [0050]: note the recited “find an airport with a runway length greater than a predefined length; find an airport with weather conditions corresponding to predefined conditions; find an airport with emergency services; and find an airport that is at most a predefined maximum distance from the aircraft, and wherein the extraction rules associated with the required bypass action comprise the extraction law: find coordinates of the aircraft waypoints for which the weather conditions correspond to predefined conditions, and distant from the aircraft by at most a second predefined maximum distance” are merely dependent on users’ specific requirements.
Regarding claim 12, Blom/Hochwarth further teaches or suggests the method according to claim 6, wherein the set of required actions comprises a start of the aircraft, a diversion of the aircraft, and a bypassing by the aircraft of a geographical area (see at least Hochwarth [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Blom does not specifically show the method according to claim 8, wherein if the task is the flight of an aircraft, then the invariant data during the task comprises a type or model reference of the aircraft, a flight number of an aircraft, a departure airport of the aircraft, and an initial amount of fuel in the aircraft.
Note the “if...then” clause seems to indicate the recited limitations are not actually required. Nevertheless, Hochwarth shows it is customary in the art for a task to include flying an aircraft (see at least [0050]);
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Blom depending on users’ requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US 20080046419 A1) teach data integration and data analysis using computing equipment, software as well as hardware, includes a system and method for integrating data from various data sources, structured and unstructured, without physically creating a data warehouse and automatically generating queries for analysis of the integrated data from a multitude of different views.
Schlueter et al (US 20080162999 A1) teach validation of an extraction process from an operation system to an on-line analytics and processing ("OLAP") system by utilizing a function module that reads data from a queue and outputs the data in a structured form. A second function module may be used to perform an existence and uniqueness check on the data to determine the existence and/or uniqueness of various data elements.
Dettinger et al (US 20080228716 A1) teach method, system and article of manufacture for processing database queries and, more particularly, for executing queries to retrieve data from both structured and unstructured data sources. A method of retrieving data from a database and an unstructured data source includes accessing the database to retrieve a first structured result set, accessing the unstructured data source using at least a portion of the structured data included in the first structured result set to retrieve an unstructured data result set, and generating a second structured result set from the unstructured data result set; and storing the second structured result in the database.
Jain S, De Buitleir A, Fallon E. A review of unstructured data analysis and parsing methods. In2020 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics (ESCI) 2020 Mar 12 (pp. 164-169). IEEE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 8 August 2026
Prosecution Insights