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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 1/26/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0011058, filed on 1/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “generating training data comprising a pair of a query, which satisfies a condition that a substring edit distance …”, the “a substring edit distance” should be “the substring edit distance” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-8 are drawn to a method, claims 9-16 are drawn to a device, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 9 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “configuring a maximum distance threshold for a substring edit distance defined as the closest distance among edit distances between a query string and all possible substrings of a data string” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “which satisfies a condition that a substring edit distance needs to be smaller than the maximum distance threshold, and a cardinality for the query” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting 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 because it is unclear how the “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “database” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving a query string set for a data string set stored in a database” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving” and “storing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No. the limitation “training, using the training data, … to predict a cardinality for an approximate substring query” is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(f).
No, This limitation “generating training data comprising a pair of a query” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting 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 because it is unclear how the “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “database” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving a query string set for a data string set stored in a database” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving” and “storing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No. the limitation “training, using the training data, … to predict a cardinality for an approximate substring query” is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, This limitation “generating training data comprising a pair of a query” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
As to claim 9:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “configuring a maximum distance threshold for a substring edit distance defined as the closest distance among edit distances between a query string and all possible substrings of a data string” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “which satisfies a condition that a substring edit distance needs to be smaller than the maximum distance threshold, and a cardinality for the query” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting 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 because it is unclear how the “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “a processor; and a memory connected to the processor and configured to store at least one code executed by the processor” and “database” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving a query string set for a data string set stored in a database” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving” and “storing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No. the limitation “training, using the training data, … to predict a cardinality for an approximate substring query” is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(f).
No, This limitation “generating training data comprising a pair of a query” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting 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 because it is unclear how the “cardinality prediction model” and “deep learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “a processor; and a memory connected to the processor and configured to store at least one code executed by the processor” and “database” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving a query string set for a data string set stored in a database” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving” and “storing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No. the limitation “training, using the training data, … to predict a cardinality for an approximate substring query” is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, This limitation “generating training data comprising a pair of a query” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-8 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 10-16 which are dependent on claim 9, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claims 2 and 10
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the training data comprises: calculating a substring edit distance for the query string and the data string; comparing the substring edit distance with the maximum distance threshold; and according to a result of the comparison, acquiring a cardinality, based on a data string which satisfies the condition that the substring edit distance needs to be smaller than the maximum distance threshold” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 3 and 11
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “further comprising, before the calculating of the substring edit distance, searching for a common prefix of two different query strings in the query string set, wherein, in case that the substring edit distance for the query string and the data string is calculated, substring edit distance calculation for the common prefix is shared without repetition” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 4 and 12
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “wherein, for the generating of the training data, a sorting-based training data generation algorithm (SODDY) or a trie-based training data generation algorithm (TEDDY) is used” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “wherein, for the generating of the training data, a sorting-based training data generation algorithm (SODDY) or a trie-based training data generation algorithm (TEDDY) is used” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “wherein, for the generating of the training data, a sorting-based training data generation algorithm (SODDY) or a trie-based training data generation algorithm (TEDDY) is used” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
This limitation “wherein, for the generating of the training data, a sorting-based training data generation algorithm (SODDY) or a trie-based training data generation algorithm (TEDDY) is used” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 5 and 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “alphabetically sorting query strings in the query string set; calculating and storing a longest common prefix length for two different adjacent query strings; and while searching the query strings in a sorted order, calculating the substring edit distance, wherein, substring edit distance calculation for the common prefix is shared without repetition.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 6 and 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “generating a trie based on the query strings; and performing a depth-first search starting from a root node of the trie, and calculating the substring edit distance for the data string starting from a longest common prefix of the query strings” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 7 and 15
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the training data further comprises: generating multiple prefix queries by classifying prefixes for the query; and generating prefix-augmented training data by calculating cardinalities for the respective multiple prefix queries.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 8 and 16
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “generating index set I by selecting b random indexes among indexes assigned to the training data; configuring a batch based on a unit via which training data corresponding to index set I enables training of a parameter of the deep learning model; and updating the parameter of the deep learning model, based on a loss function for cardinalities corresponding to the multiple prefix queries and the query within the batch.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “receiving the training data comprising the prefix-augmented training data” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “receiving the training data comprising the prefix-augmented training data” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
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 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
“minIL: A Simple and Small Index for String Similarity Search with Edit Distance”, Yang et al, 2022 in view of “Learned Cardinarlity Estimation for Similiarity Queries”, Sun et al, 2021
Referring to claims 1 and 9, Yang discloses a method for generating a cardinality prediction model for an approximate substring query, the method comprising:
receiving a query string set for a data string set stored in a database; (page 1 of Yang, I “Introduction”, query string sets)
configuring a maximum distance threshold for a substring edit distance defined as the closest distance among edit distances between a query string and all possible substrings of a data string; (page 2 of Yang, “(Threshold-based Similarity Search with Edit Distance). Given a set of string S={s1,s2,...,sN} and a query string q, and a threshold k, the threshold-based similarity search with edit distance reports a set R of all strings si ∈ S such that ED(si,q)≤k.”)
generating training data comprising a pair of a query, which satisfies a condition that a substring edit distance needs to be smaller than the maximum distance threshold; (page 2 of Yang, “(Threshold-based Similarity Search with Edit Distance). Given a set of string S={s1,s2,...,sN} and a query string q, and a threshold k, the threshold-based similarity search with edit distance reports a set R of all strings si ∈ S such that ED(si,q)≤k.” and “Consider a set of strings in Table III. Assume a query string q=“above” with length of 5, and k = 1, the threshold similarity search returns “abode” since the edit distance between “abode” and the query “above” is 1≤k.”)
Yang does not specifically disclose generating training data comprises “a cardinality for the query” and “training, using the training data, a deep learning model to predict a cardinality for an approximate substring query.”
However, Sun discloses (Fig. 1 of page 2 of Sun shows how to use DNN to calculate the cardinality of the data query)
Yang and Sun are analogous art because both references concern calculating similarity between strings. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang’s calculating closeness of strings with calculating cardinality of similar strings as taught by Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently learn to estimate the cardinality of similarity searches and yield effective estimates.
Referring to claims 2 and 10, Yang in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the training data comprises: calculating a substring edit distance for the query string and the data string; comparing the substring edit distance with the maximum distance threshold; and according to a result of the comparison, acquiring a cardinality, based on a data string which satisfies the condition that the substring edit distance needs to be smaller than the maximum distance threshold. (page 2 of Yang, “(Threshold-based Similarity Search with Edit Distance). Given a set of string S={s1,s2,...,sN} and a query string q, and a threshold k, the threshold-based similarity search with edit distance reports a set R of all strings si ∈ S such that ED(si,q)≤k.” and “Consider a set of strings in Table III. Assume a query string q=“above” with length of 5, and k = 1, the threshold similarity search returns “abode” since the edit distance between “abode” and the query “above” is 1≤k.”)
Referring to claims 7 and 15, Yang in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the training data further comprises: generating multiple prefix queries by classifying prefixes for the query; and generating prefix-augmented training data by calculating cardinalities for the respective multiple prefix queries. (page 12 of Yang, “Deng et al. [8] used a trie index to share common prefixes and proposed a range-based algorithm by grouping specific entries to avoid duplicated computations. Wang et al. [21] designed a novel filter-and-refine pipeline approach that used long but approximate n-gram matches for candidates pruning. Zhang et al. [28] developed Bed-tree utilizing B+-tree to index strings and Yu et al. [24] devised a unified framework using hierarchical segment tree (HS-tree) to support both threshold and top-k similarity search.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8 and 11-14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
101 rejections remain.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Prakash et al (US 20190272296 A1): Systems and methods for natural language question answering are described. For example, methods may include determining a set of candidate database queries, including respective sequences of tokens of a database syntax, based on a string; determining a first score for a first candidate database query from the set of candidate database queries, wherein the first score is based on a match between one or more words of the string and a token of the respective sequence of tokens of the first candidate database query; determining a second score for the first candidate database query, wherein the second score is based on natural language syntax data determined for words of the string; selecting, based on the first score and the second score, the first candidate database query from the set of candidate database queries; and invoking a search of the database using the first candidate database query to obtain search results.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights