DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed March 9, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite: for each record, breaking the record into a plurality of value records, extracting from the record metadata about the record, wherein each value record of the plurality of value records comprises one data value; and establishing relationships between the plurality of value records using a value pattern based on at least one of: the plurality of value indices, the respective data values of the plurality of value records, or a plurality of constraints associated with the plurality of value records; determining one or more solutions based on the established relationships between the plurality of value records, wherein the one or more solutions include value records held in a plurality of slots; and constructing and producing a value pattern outcome, as a stream of instances or instance updates, based on the one or more solutions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally, or manually with pen and paper, break a record into values records, extract metadata, establish relationships between value records and produce value pattern outcomes, determine one or more solutions based on established relationships, and construct and produce a value pattern outcome.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “receiving, from one or more sources, source data as a plurality of records, each record comprising a plurality of data values”, “producing the plurality of value records as a data stream” and “indexing the plurality of value records using data stream processing based on the respective data values of the plurality of value records, to produce a plurality of value indices” represents mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the producing and indexing using data stream processing also represent applying an abstract idea using a generic computer. The additional elements of a “server system comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors to store instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (in claim 11) represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving”, “producing” and “indexing” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, the producing and indexing using data stream processing also represent applying an abstract idea using a generic computer. As discussed above, the recitation of a server comprising one or more processors and one or more memories to perform claimed operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 10, 12, and 20, the limitations “backfilling metadata edits to the plurality of value records, wherein the metadata edits are edits made to the extracted metadata about the plurality of records, wherein backfilling the metadata edits to the plurality of value records comprises locating a value entry in the plurality of value records” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of “publishing an updated value entry with the metadata edits” represents adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of “publishing an updated value entry with the metadata edits” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory, and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite: wherein establishing the relationships between the plurality of value records comprises: establishing a first relationship between the plurality of value records based on the plurality of value indices and the respective data values of the plurality of value records, to produce a subset of the plurality of value records with the first relationship and a subset of the plurality of value indices corresponding to the subset of the plurality of value records, and establishing a second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records based on the subset of the plurality of value indices and the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records. These limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 3 and 13.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite: wherein determining the one or more solutions comprises: determining the one or more solutions based on the established first and second relationships, wherein the one or more solutions include a first value record held in a first slot of the plurality of slots and a second value record held in a second slot of the plurality of slots. These limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 4 and 14.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite: merging the one or more solutions to produce a merged solution; and constructing and producing the value pattern outcome comprises constructing and producing the value pattern outcome based on the merged solution. These limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 5 and 15.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 do not recite any new limitations directed to the abstract idea. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of “looking up a set of identifiers for the plurality of value records with like values” represents addition insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “looking up a set of identifiers for the plurality of value records with like values” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory, and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein establishing the second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records comprises comparing the subset of the plurality of value indices or the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records to determine value indices or data values that meet an inequality relationship.” This limitation falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 7 and 17.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite: wherein establishing the relationships between the plurality of value records comprises: establishing a first relationship between the plurality of value records based on the respective data values of the plurality of value records, to produce a subset of the plurality of value records with the first relationship, and establishing a second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records based on the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records. These limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 8 and 18.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite limitations further describing the value records of the mental processes recited in claims 1 and 11. As such, these claims are also directed to the abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 9 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gladwin et al. (US 2024/0256541 A1) (‘Gladwin’).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Gladwin teaches computer-implemented method of
analyzing data values and a server system, comprising:
one or more processors (paragraphs 318 and 420); and
one or more memories (paragraphs 318 and 420) coupled to the one or more
processors to store instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause
the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, from one or more sources, source data as a plurality of records, each record
comprising a plurality of data values (paragraphs 156-157 and 317);
for each record, breaking the record into a plurality of value records, extracting
from the record metadata (paragraph 171) about the record, and producing the plurality of value records as a data stream (paragraphs 205, 297, 301, 307-308 teach data streams), wherein each value record of the plurality of value records comprises a data value (Figs. 25A and 25C; paragraphs 330-331, 370-371);
indexing the plurality of value records using data stream processing (paragraphs 205, 297, 301, 307-308 teach data stream processing) based on the respective data values of the
plurality of value records, to produce a plurality of value indices (paragraphs 389-390); and
establishing relationships between the plurality of value records using a value pattern based on at least one of: the plurality of value indices, the respective data values of the plurality of value records, or a plurality of constraints associated with the plurality of value records (paragraphs 400-401 and 470);
determining one or more solutions based on the established relationships between the plurality of value records, wherein the one or more solutions include value records held in a plurality of slots (paragraph 381); and constructing and producing a value pattern outcome, as a stream of instances or instance updates (paragraph 1108 - the results received in responses from the object storage system can be implemented as rows (e.g. multiple streams in a corresponding format)), based on the one or more solutions (paragraph 381) (an equality condition corresponding to equality of the one or more values of the unique identifier field set 2565 and/or other set of fields of the first table with values of a set of corresponding one or more fields of the second table can be utilized to perform the JOIN operation).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Gladwin teaches wherein establishing the relationships between the plurality of value records comprises: establishing a first relationship between the plurality of value records based on the plurality of value indices and the respective data values of the plurality of value records, to produce a subset of the plurality of value records with the first relationship and a subset of the plurality of value indices corresponding to the subset of the plurality of value records (i.e. clustering records based on values) (paragraphs 398, 400-401 and 470), and
establishing a second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records based on the subset of the plurality of value indices and the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records (the values of first subset of the plurality of fields for each given record are clustered, organized, and/or are otherwise stored and/or indexed in accordance with indexes generated based on the original values of at least one second field of the given record) (paragraphs 401, 450, and 470).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Gladwin teaches wherein determining the one or more solutions comprises: determining the one or more solutions based on the established first and second relationships, wherein the one or more solutions include a first value record held in a first slot and a second value record held in a second slot of the plurality of slots, (an equality condition corresponding to equality of the one or more values of the unique identifier field set 2565 and/or other set of fields of the first table with values of a set of corresponding one or more fields of the second table can be utilized to perform the JOIN operation) (paragraph 381).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Gladwin teaches merging the one or more solutions to produce a merged solution; and constructing and producing the value pattern outcome comprises constructing and producing the value pattern outcome based on the merged solution (i.e. join operations) (paragraph 381).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Gladwin teaches wherein establishing the first relationship between the plurality of value records comprises looking up a set of identifiers for the plurality of value records with like values (paragraphs 401-402).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Gladwin teaches wherein establishing the second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records comprises comparing the subset of the plurality of value indices or the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records to determine value indices or data values that meet an inequality relationship (i.e. greater than/less than, etc.) (paragraphs 695 and 1132).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Gladwin teaches wherein establishing the relationships between the plurality of value records comprises: establishing a first relationship between the plurality of value records based on the respective data values of the plurality of value records, to produce a subset of the plurality of value records with the first relationship (i.e. clustering records based on values) (paragraphs 398, 400-401 and 470), and
establishing a second relationship between the subset of the plurality of value records based on the respective data values of the subset of the plurality of value records (the values of first subset of the plurality of fields for each given record are clustered, organized, and/or are otherwise stored and/or indexed in accordance with indexes generated based on the original values of at least one second field of the given record) (paragraphs 401, 450, and 470).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Gladwin teaches wherein each value record comprises at least one of: a record identifier (ID) (paragraphs 370-371 and 375), a field identifier/name, an ingest timestamp, a metadata version identifier, the data value in the value record, a data type of the data value, or a semantic type of the data value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladwin in view of Anand et al. (US 20230315582 A1) (‘Anand’).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Gladwin teaches editing metadata fields (paragraph 847).
Anand teaches backfilling metadata edits to the plurality of value records, wherein the metadata edits are edits made to the extracted metadata about the plurality of records (paragraphs 147 and 190).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the metadata edits of Gladwin to be backfilled as taught by Anand so that metadata is complete and therefore provide data reliability and improved operations (Anand, paragraphs 147-149). Further, Gladwin already teaches editing metadata and thus incorporating backfilling metadata edits would provide predictable result of updated metadata.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Gladwin in view of Anand teaches wherein backfilling the metadata edits to the plurality of value records comprises locating a value entry in the plurality of value records and publishing an updated value entry with the metadata edits (Anand, paragraphs 147 and 190).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1 and 2 are directed to a method of analyzing data that involves steps of manipulation of data, and that none of the steps can be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner disagrees. More specifically, Applicant argues that the human mind cannot practically produce value records as a data stream and index those value records using data stream processing. However, these limitations are addressed as additional elements and not recited as being mental processes. Although, the examiner does note that the human mind can produce value records and index those value records. However, because those limitations are recited as being performed using data stream processing, the examiner does not determine them to be mental processes, but instead additional elements. As such, they are addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2 in the rejection above.
Applicant also argues that data backfill operates by identifying missing or incomplete data points and replacing them with updated values, and thus backfilling cannot practically be performed in the human mind given the massive amounts of data. The examiner disagrees. First, the examiner notes that the claims do not recite a particular amount of data. Further, backfilling metadata edits encompasses a user mentally or manually with pen and paper filling/updating metadata edits to value records. Applicant’s specification states that “backfill[ing] may involve reading all the values of type text and looking for additional values in the text” which are also mental processes.
Applicant further argues that the combination of additional elements recited in claim 1, as a whole, integrates the method into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. The additional elements in claim 1 are receiving source data, producing value records as a data stream, and indexing using data stream processing, which are recited at a high level of generality and thus represent adding insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the producing and indexing using data stream processing also represent applying an abstract idea using a generic computer. The other steps that Applicant argues provide integration into a practical application are mental steps. An abstract idea alone cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Incorporating the steps of receiving the data, producing value records, and indexing data only adds insignificant extra solution activity. The alleged improvements that Applicant recite appear to be improvements to an abstract idea. There are no steps that show improvement to a technology or technical field that reflect the disclosed improvement in a non-abstract way.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is an improvement over existing data analytics technology by providing computing/analysis tasks on values rather than records. The examiner disagrees. With the exception of the receiving, producing and indexing steps, the claimed limitations in claim 1 are all directed to steps that can be performed mentally. The analysis features of the claimed invention can be performed mentally, and thus do not provide and improvement. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity or merely applying the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the claims do not reflect an improvement in a computer technology.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to claim 1 of Example 40 provided by the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37-42 where the claim was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim as a whole provides a specific improvement, resulting in improved network monitoring. However, the subject matter and facts of Example 40 are not the same as the present invention. Even as a whole, the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 do not provide a specific improvement. Instead, they provide data gathering and storing and applying the abstract idea using a computer.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed invention provides a specific improvement over prior art data analytics technology by providing intelligent data analytics that can timely and effectively process information to identify useful patterns and trends. The examiner disagrees. The data analytics recited in the claims are mental processes. Even the concept Applicant mentions, i.e. identifying useful patterns and trends, is an abstract idea. The claims do not provide any additional elements, even when viewed in combination, that show an improvement over prior art data analytics technology by providing intelligent data analytics that can timely and effectively process information to identify useful patterns and trends.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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 Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights