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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 19 & 20 have been amended. New claims 21 & 22 were added. Therefore, claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, regarding the § 101 rejection, the newly added limitation “providing an original dataset . . . the original dataset having a hierarchical data format (HDF)” is subject to a written description rejection, set forth below, and is analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two. The newly added rendering step is analyzed under Step 2A Prong One as set forth below.
Second, regarding Applicant’s prior art arguments at pages 10-12 of the Remarks, the examiner again notes the written description rejection in response to these amended limitations. Further, the newly identified Li reference is cited to teach the limitations as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 & 20 have been amended to recite “the original dataset having a hierarchical data format (HDF)”. Applicant notes on page 11 of the Remarks:
Each of the independent claims have been amended to specify that the original dataset has a "Hierarchical Data Format (HDF)." Example support for this feature may be found at paragraph [0134] of the Specification, which describes examples of HDF as being "HDF5 or later." The change differs slightly from the language proposed during the Interview, which specified that the original dataset is NetCDF. However, specifying HDF is sufficient to exclude CSV files, which do not have a hierarchical data format. The NetCDF feature is now recited in new claim 21.
The choice of capitalization is significant here. As recited, the uncapitalized phrase “hierarchical data format”, broadly interpreted, is any data format that has a hierarchical property. The creation of an acronym after the generic phrase in the claims cannot serve to transform that phrase into a particular formal data format, namely HDF (the Hierarchical Data Format, currently in version 5). NetCDF, described in the cited prior art references, is such a hierarchical data format.
Applicant’s specification does not provide support for a generic “hierarchical data format”. As noted by Applicant, specification paragraph [0134] does support the standardized “Hierarchical Data Format”. This paragraph is reproduced in its entirety below for convenience:
[0134] As shown, the example dataset 1502 has three dimensions, labeled X, Y, and Time, thus providing an N-dimensional space 1510 where N equals 3 (Time is considered a dimension of the N-dimensional space for our purposes). The N-dimensional space 1510 may include any number of dimensions. In an example, the dataset 1502 is provided as a NetCDF file, such as a NetCDF4 (or later) file. The file format of the NetCDF4 file may be HDF (Hierarchical Data Format), such as HDF5 or later. These are merely examples, however. A header 1504 may be included with the dataset 1502, e.g., for defining dimensions, variables, and other features.
(Emphasis added).
Finally, the examiner notes that over the course of his examination of this application, it is his understanding that the emphasized portion might not be an accurate statement. NetCDF format is a subset of HDF format. In other words, a NetCDF file is wholly compliant with the HDF specification because NetCDF includes additional stringent criteria that HDF does not address. Thus, a NetCDF file will always be compliant with HDF, but not all HDF files are compliant with HDF.
This is significant because it appears independent claim 1 intended to recite the original dataset is in Hierarchical Data Format, but then claim 21 attempts to redefine this same original dataset to be in NetCDF format.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Indefiniteness
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 1-22 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.
Claims 1, 19 & 20 recite “providing . . . data arranged along multiple dimensions of an N-dimensional space”. N is not defined or explained in the claims and renders the claims indefinite. The examiner suggests adding “wherein N is an integer greater than zero”.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
Additionally, claims 8, 12-15 & 17 each recite “the dataset”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for all of these instances. Claim 1 recites “an original dataset” and never refers to “the dataset” afterwards. Because there is only ever “an original dataset”, the examiner suggests the remaining claims be amended to recite “the[[an]] original dataset”.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, a computerized apparatus, and a computer program product including a set of non-transitory computer readable media (claims 1, 19 & 20). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites “extracting multiple portions of data from the original dataset, each portion extending over a reduced range of dimensional units in at least one dimension of the N-dimensional space, the extracted portions together covering all original ranges of the N-dimensional space; and rendering the extracted portions in respective segments that provide data of the extracted portions in the same HDF as the original dataset, said rendering including constructing a header for each of the respective segments, each header including metadata that supports the HDF.”
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7 & 14-18 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping. Claims 19 & 20 correspond to claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
These additional elements include: computing node, cluster, candidate nodes, computing apparatus, control circuitry, processors, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable media.
Independent claim 1 recites: “providing an original dataset that contains data arranged along multiple dimensions of an N-dimensional space, each dimension of the N-dimensional space having a respective original range of dimensional units, the original dataset having a hierarchical data format (HDF); and performing a parallel processing task on the extracted portions in the respective segments to produce an overall processing result that pertains to the original dataset as a whole”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 3, 5, 8-13, 21 & 22 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 19 & 20 correspond to claim 1.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) “SciMATE: A Novel MapReduce-Like Framework for Multiple Scientific Data Formats” by Wang et al. (published 2012, hereinafter “Wang”), in view of
(ii) “Parallel netCDF: A High-Performance Scientific I/O Interface” by Li et al. (published 2003, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 1, 19 & 20, Wang teaches:
A method of managing multi-dimensional data, comprising:
providing an original dataset that contains data arranged along multiple dimensions of an N-dimensional space, each dimension of the N-dimensional space having a respective original range of dimensional units, the original dataset having a hierarchical data format (HDF) [Wang, page 444, § II.B, first full paragraph describing NetCDF, which is a hierarchical data format];
extracting multiple portions of data from the original dataset, each portion extending over a reduced range of dimensional units in at least one dimension of the N-dimensional space, the extracted portions together covering all original ranges of the N-dimensional space [Wang, page 444, § III.A, second paragraph]; and
rendering the extracted portions in respective segments that provide data of the extracted portions in the same data format as the original dataset [Wang, page 445, § III.B, last paragraph and Table 2]; and
performing a parallel processing task on the extracted portions in the respective segments to produce an overall processing result that pertains to the original dataset as a whole [Wang, page 443, § II.A, MapReduce and MATE (which SciMATE is based on), performs parallel processing suitable for a variety of applications].
Wang does not explicitly teach, but Li teaches:
said rendering including constructing a header for each of the respective segments, each header including metadata that supports the HDF [Li, page 2, § 3.1 and page 6, § 4.2.1].
Wang and Li are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, netCDF file processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the data partitioning and header management techniques taught by Li to achieve portable smaller datasets from a larger dataset for further analysis and transmission.
The combination of Wang and Li teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein extracting the portions of data includes defining portions that have a dimensional size of one in at least one dimension of the multiple dimensions [Wang, page 444, § III.A, second paragraph].
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
placing the respective segments in respective nodes a plurality of computing nodes of a cluster [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A]; and
tracking, in object metadata of the cluster, locations of the respective segments on the nodes [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A].
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising reconstructing the original dataset from the respective segments [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A].
5. The method of claim 4,
wherein the original dataset has an original header stored in the storage cluster [Wang, page 448, § V.B, “Data Loading Times” paragraph discussing NetCDF headers], and
wherein reconstructing the original dataset includes:
extracting data from the respective segments [Wang, page 444, § III.A, second paragraph];
injecting the data extracted from the respective segments into a template dataset [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A];
retrieving the original header from the storage cluster [Wang, page 448, § V.B, “Data Loading Times” paragraph discussing NetCDF headers]; and
copying the original header into the template dataset [Wang, page 448, § V.B, “Data Loading Times” paragraph discussing NetCDF headers].
6. The method of claim 3, further comprising tracking, in the object metadata, associations between segments and respective ranges of the multiple dimensions covered by the segments [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A].
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the tracked associations between the segments and the respective ranges specify one of (i) exact ranges of the multiple dimensions covered by the segments or (ii) inexact ranges that are not smaller than the exact ranges of the multiple dimensions covered by the segments [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A; and page 445, § III.B, first full paragraph and Table I].
8. The method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a query request to read a set of data of the dataset, the query request specifying a set of predicates that define a region or set of regions of the N-dimensional space [Wang, page 445, § III.B, second full paragraph];
accessing the object metadata, said accessing locating a set of candidate nodes that the associations identify as candidates for storing the set of data, the set of candidate nodes being a subset of the plurality of computing nodes [Wang, page 444, Fig. 1 and § III.A; and page 445, § III.B, first full paragraph and Table I]; and
sending the query request or a modified version thereof to each of the set of candidate nodes to return a respective share of the set of data [Wang, page 443, § II.A].
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving, from the set of candidate nodes, respective shares of the requested set of data [Wang, page 443, § II.A]; and
merging the respective shares to render a query result that provides the set of data in its entirety [Wang, page 443, § II.A].
10. The method of claim 9, wherein at least one node of the set of candidate nodes returns an empty share that contains none of the set of data [Wang, page 443, § II.A].
11. The method of claim 8, wherein receiving the query request includes receiving a set of query criteria expressed as a set of ranges of non-dimensional variables or labels, and wherein the method further comprises translating the set of query criteria into the set of predicates [Wang, page 446, § IV.A, “Strided Pattern” paragraph].
12. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving an aggregate query request, the aggregate query request specifying a range of variable values stored in the dataset at respective coordinates of the N-dimensional space [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1];
transmitting the aggregate query request or a modified version thereof to each of the plurality of computing nodes or a subset thereof [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1];
receiving partial aggregate query results from each of the plurality of computing nodes or said subset thereof in response to the aggregate query or modified version thereof being run locally on each respective node [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1]; and
combining the partial aggregate query results to provide an overall aggregate query result [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1].
13. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a processing request to run an analytic procedure on the dataset [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1];
transmitting the processing request or a modified version thereof to each of the plurality of computing nodes or a subset thereof [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1];
receiving partial results from each of the plurality of computing nodes or said subset thereof in response to the analytic procedure or modified version thereof being run locally on each respective node [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1]; and
combining the partial results to provide an overall analytic result [Wang, page 443, § II.A; and page 444, Fig. 1].
14. The method of claim 3, wherein the dataset stores the data contiguously in an array-based layout organized by dimensions, and wherein extracting said multiple portions of data includes, for each portion, selecting a sub-tensor of multi-dimensional data in the dataset to be included in the respective portion [Wang, page 444, § II.B, first full paragraph describing NetCDF; and page 444, § III.A, second paragraph].
15. The method of claim 3, wherein the dataset stores the data in chunks having uniform dimensional proportions, and wherein extracting said multiple portions of the data includes selecting, for each portion, a respective integer number greater than zero of chunks of the dataset that form a sub-tensor [Wang, page 445, § III.B, first two full paragraphs and Table I].
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the extracted portions have a desired size, wherein the chunks have non-uniform data sizes, and wherein selecting the integer number of chunks includes selecting, for at least a subset of the portions, a respective number of chunks having a combined data size that substantially matches the desired size [Wang, page 445, § III.B, first two full paragraphs and Table I].
17. The method of claim 16, wherein selecting the integer number of chunks includes selecting only physically consecutive chunks in the dataset for inclusion in a portion [Wang, page 445, § III.B, first two full paragraphs and Table I].
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the physically consecutive chunks include at least two chunks that are physically separated by non-chunk data [Wang, page 446, § IV.A, “Partial Read” section].
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the original dataset is a NetCDF file, and wherein constructing the header for each of the respective segments includes constructing a NetCDF header using a NetCDF software library [Li, page 6, § 4.2.1].
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the original dataset has a header that indicates a dimensionality of the original dataset, and wherein the header constructed for each of the respective segments indicates a dimensionality of the segment different from the dimensionality of the original dataset [Li, page 6, § 4.2.1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 03/07/2026