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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Restriction Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as of November 3, 2025 without traverse.
Claims 1-10 are examined.
This application contains 11-20 are drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on November 3, 2025. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims 11-20 to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims 11-20 to a non-elected invention with Applicant’s amendment and response to this Non-final office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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”.
Claims 1-10 are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example “broadcasting a first identification message…. Configured to indicate … data analysis…indicate type….indicate … a model”.
The apparatus and the method claim 10recites limitation, “broadcasting a first identification message … wherein the first identification message is configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis, and the first identification message comprises a first data analytic identifier and/or a first model identifier; wherein the first data analytic identifier is configured to indicate a type of the first distributed data analysis, the first model identifier is configured to indicate a model used in the first distributed data analysis”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites, “broadcasting a first identification message…. Configured to indicate … data analysis…indicate type….indicate … a model”. The broadcasting step recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of broadcasting identification message where claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, etcj., (See specifically MPEP 2106.05 (f) Sec 1. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/” Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as recited in Claims 1-10.
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 1-10 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.
Examiner is unclear as to what the Applicant intended to by the claimed, “broadcasting first identification message… configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis…. configured to indicate a type… configured to indicate a model used…”. Applicant did not indicate anything being transformed, created or generated. Examiner is unable to determine what the Applicant considers novel.
Examiner recommends the Applicant to review the specification for novelty. Appropriate explanation and correction are required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by S. Gerweck (US Patent No. 9948655 B1 and Gerweck hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Gerwerk teaches message transmission method performed by a first device, (Figure 3, whole figure) infra:
PNG
media_image1.png
586
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising:
broadcasting a first identification message to at least one device (Figure 3, whole figure, supra and Figure 3, i.e. including database message) comprising a second device, wherein the first identification message is configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis (Figure 1B, whole figure) infra:
PNG
media_image2.png
690
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the first identification message (i.e., interacting with certain instances of analysis tools 103 (e.g., Tableau, Excel, QlikView, Business Objects, etc.) that can communicate messages representing various instances of subject database statements 104 to be interpreted on associated datasets. In some cases, the user 102 may want to perform analyses on a set of subject data 101 (e.g., mobile activity, social network activity, transactions, CRM activity, etc.) that is stored in a subject database 118 (e.g., as flat file data, multidimensional data, etc.) in a distributed data warehouse 111. The subject data structures 119 and/or other characteristics of the subject database 118 can be specified by certain attributes (e.g., database definitions, schema definitions, etc.) comprising certain instances of subject database metadata 158 in a distributed data meta store 113. As an example, the distributed data warehouse 111 can be configured to conform to the HDFS framework and the distributed data meta store 113 can be a Hive meta store. As shown, the subject database statements 104 can be delivered to a data analytics engine 130 to produce associated instances of planned subject database statements 107 that can be issued to a distributed data query engine 117 for operation) (Col 7, lines 50-67 to Col 8, lines 1-5) comprises a first data analytic identifier and/or a first model identifier (i.e. version identifier) (Col 19, lines 25-37); wherein the first data analytic identifier is configured to indicate a type of the first distributed data analysis (i.e., directives can be associated with the type of data store comprising the distributed data warehouse. For example, an Impala instance of the distributed data query engine can have certain built-in structures that can be used as low latency directives when accessing an HDFS instance of the distributed data warehouse) (Col 11, lines 64-67 to Col 12, lines 1-24), the first model identifier is configured to indicate a model used in the first distributed data analysis (Col 12, lines 6-49).
Claims 2-10 are rejected based on the rejected base independent Claim 1, at this time.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Devine et al., (US Patent Publication No. 20020095399 A1), “System And Methods Providing Automatic Distributed Data Retrieval, Analysis And Reporting Services” (July 18, 2002).
Chen et al., (US Patent No. 10157352 B1), “Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning, And Predictive Analytic For Patent And Non-patent Documents” (December 18, 2018).
Sarah Gerweck (US Patent No. 9948655 B1), “Data access authorization for dynamically generated database structures” (April 17, 2018).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov