DETAILED ACTION
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 11, 19 in the filed amendment on 7/3/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the claims 1, 11, and 19 are amended to recite “using a chase algorithm to compute left Kan extension”, which overcomes disadvantages in prior data integration system using the left Kan extension (See, e.g., Application at [0031]-[0032]) and overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, each has been amended to recite the practical application of the recited invention to combine two data sets having different schema to provide a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to a single, shared schema.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applying the mental process (i.e. compute a left Kan extension) by using a computer or computer environment as a tool (i.e. a chase algorithm) is not an improvement and does not negate the identified mental process. Rather this appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the amendment essentially recites using a chase algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Generic using a chase algorithm is not any improvement to the function of the computer or technology, there is no recitation of any new or improved way. Instead it is generic computer implementation, consistent with the Federal Circuit decision for instance in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In addition,
step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations
(combine the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema; and
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first set of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generate a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema, wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema), as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of combining, computing, generating, determining and computing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 11, 19, recite abstract limitations
combining the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first subset of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generating a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema,
wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema, as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of combining, computing, generating, determining and computing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
step 2A Prong Two:
Claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the addition elements of a memory, a chase algorithm, a processor (in claim 1); a chase algorithm (in claim 11); and computer instructions, a chase algorithm (claim 19) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of
(store a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claim 1 and (receiving a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; and receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claims 11, 19 that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and
(wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type) that just indicates left kan extension defining instances of types as a single instance.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
step 2B:
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the addition elements of a memory, a chase algorithm, a processor (in claim 1); a chase algorithm (in claim 11); and computer instructions, a chase algorithm (claim 19) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (store a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claim 1 and (receiving a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; and receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claims 11, 19 that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and
(wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type) that just indicates left kan extension defining instances of types as a single instance.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, 101 rejection for claims 1-20 are maintained in this office action.
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.
Claim 1 recites limitations
a memory configured to store a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema;
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
combine the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema; and
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first set of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generate a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema, wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema.
Claims 11, 19 similarly recite limitations
receiving a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; and
combining the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema; and
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first subset of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generating a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema,
wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema.
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations
(combine the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first set of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generate a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema, wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema), as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of combining, computing, generating, determining and computing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 11, 19, recite abstract limitations
combining the first set of data with the second set of data to generate a combined set of data according to the target schema, at least in part by:
using a chase algorithm to compute a left Kan extension of the first subset of data along the mapping, wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type; and
generating a spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema,
wherein the second set of data includes a derived column of data determined by applying to one or more other values included in the second set of data an equation having an equation pattern and
wherein computing the left Kan extension preserves the equation pattern as expressed in a corresponding column of the spreadsheet representation of the combined set of data according to the target schema, as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of combining, computing, generating, determining and computing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the addition elements of a memory, a chase algorithm, a processor (in claim 1); a chase algorithm (in claim 11); and computer instructions, a chase algorithm (claim 19) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of
(store a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claim 1 and (receiving a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; and receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claims 11, 19 that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and
(wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type) that just indicates left kan extension defining instances of types as a single instance.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the addition elements of a memory, a chase algorithm, a processor (in claim 1); a chase algorithm (in claim 11); and computer instructions, a chase algorithm (claim 19) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (store a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claim 1 and (receiving a first set of data associated with a source schema and a second set of data associated with a target schema; and receiving a mapping that associates a first data type and a second data type of the source schema to a corresponding data type of the target schema) in claims 11, 19 that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and
(wherein the left Kan extension equates a first instance of the first data type and a second instance of the second data type as a single instance of the corresponding data type) that just indicates left kan extension defining instances of types as a single instance.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, 20 include all the limitations of claims 1, 11, 19. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-18, 20 recite the same abstract idea of calculating practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 12 recite limitation (wherein the first set or subset of data comprises a first spreadsheet) that just indicates definition of data.
Claims 3, 13 recite limitation (wherein the source schema is associated with the first spreadsheet) that just indicates schema associating with spreadsheet.
Claims 4, 14 recites limitation (wherein the set of data further includes a second subset of data, the second subset of data being associated with a second spreadsheet) that just indicates definition of data.
Claims 5, 15 recite limitation (wherein the target schema is associated with a combined spreadsheet and the migration comprises combining the first spreadsheet and the second spreadsheet to produce the combined spreadsheet) indicates schema associating with data.
Claims 6, 16 recite limitation (wherein the mapping comprises one or more isomorphisms between a first data type of the first spreadsheet and a second data type of the second spreadsheet) that just indicates definition of mapping.
Claims 7, 17 recite limitation (wherein the mapping includes a function) that just indicates definition of mapping.
Claim 8 recites limitation (wherein the function computes for a first value of the first spreadsheet a corresponding value associated with a schema of the second spreadsheet) that just indicates function used to computing data.
Claims 9, 18 recites limitation (wherein the processor is configured to form a pseudo-colimit schema based on a user-provided set of isomorphisms) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of forming. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites limitation (determine based on the first spreadsheet and the second spreadsheet, and display to a user, a set of one or more suggested isomorphisms) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Claim 20 has the same limitations as discussed in claims 2-4; thus claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claims 2-4.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh (US 10713429)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached on (571) 272-9782. 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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169