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 .
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines, claims 13-19 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 13, and 20: The limitations “generating a 1 by N input vector using the input string, N being a constant number”, “expanding the input vector to an input matrix, the input matrix having a size of N by N”, “adding the first integer matrix and the input matrix to generate an intermediate matrix”, “generating a symbol-encoded vector using the intermediate matrix”, “generating a first round output matrix using the symbol-encoded vector and the intermediate matrix”, and “generating a hash for the input string based at least in part on the first round output matrix”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 13, and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element –“at least one processor programmed to perform operations”, which is merely a recitation of a generic computing component and/or function being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements of “accessing the input string” and “accessing a first integer matrix, the first integer matrix having a size of N by N”, which are merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely retrieving data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further yet, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements of “the input string being data stored by a database management system at a database schema element” and “writing, by the database management system, the hash to an index location associated with the database schema element” are merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, this limitation merely retrieve data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Lastly, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the additional element of “the database schema element being one of a table, a row, or a column” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prongs 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 13, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 13, and 20: The claims do not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and insignificant data gathering activities which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2 and 14, the limitation “the hash comprising a symbol-encoded N by N matrix”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 2 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 14 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 15, the limitation “the input string comprising more than N characters, the generating of the 1 by N input vector comprising determining a sum of a first column of an X by N matrix, X being a number, the X by N matrix comprising a first row comprising a first N characters of the input string and a second row comprising at least one character of the input string positioned after the first N characters of the input string”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 3 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 15 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 16, the limitations “writing the input vector to a first row of the input matrix”, “circular shifting the input vector to generate a first circular shifted input vector”, and “writing the first circular shifted input vector to a second row of the input matrix”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 4 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 16 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 17, the limitations “circular shifting the first circular shifted input vector to generate a second circular shifted input vector” and “writing the second circular shifted input vector to a third row of the input matrix”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 5 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 17 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 18, the limitation “accessing a sequence of N integers” is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, this limitation merely retrieve data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, claims 6 and 18 recite “multiplying an integer vector comprising the sequence of N integers by a transpose of the integer vector”, which, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 6 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 18 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 19, the limitations “for a first column of the intermediate matrix, generating a first column sum” and “mapping the first column sum to a symbol encoding range to generate a first symbol-encoded value”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claims 7 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 19 fail both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 8, the limitation “adding an offset to the first symbol-encoded value to generate an offset symbol-encoded value”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 fails both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 9, the limitations “generating a first row of the first round output matrix using the symbol-encoded vector, a first row of the intermediate matrix, and an average of the symbol-encoded vector” and “generating a second row of the first round output matrix using the symbol-encoded vector, a second row of the intermediate matrix, the average of the symbol-encoded vector, and the first row of the first round output matrix”, as drafted, are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fails both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 10, the limitations “mapping the first round output matrix to a symbol encoding range”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 11, the limitation “generating a second round output matrix using the first round output matrix and the first integer matrix, the generating of the hash for the input string also being based at least in part on the second round output matrix”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 12, the limitation “mapping the second round output matrix to a symbol encoding range”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Examiner’s Note
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The examiner disagrees. Per the flowchart in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. The first prong “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” and the second prong “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”. As detailed in the rejection of claim 1, in the analysis of Step 2A Prong One, the limitations “generating a 1 by N input vector using the input string, N being a constant number”, “expanding the input vector to an input matrix, the input matrix having a size of N by N”, “adding the first integer matrix and the input matrix to generate an intermediate matrix”, “generating a symbol-encoded vector using the intermediate matrix”, “generating a first round output matrix using the symbol-encoded vector and the intermediate matrix”, and “generating a hash for the input string based at least in part on the first round output matrix” cover mathematical calculations and/or mathematical relationships. The analysis then proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two, which analyzes whether the additional elements, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that is discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d). For claim 1, the additional elements are “at least one processor programmed to perform operations”, “accessing the input string” and “accessing a first integer matrix, the first integer matrix having a size of N by N”, none of which provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Applicant is arguing that elements of the judicial exception provide an improvement when the analysis of Step 2A Prong Two is to whether the additional elements provide an improvement.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the specific improvements to computing technology described by the specification are also incorporated into the claim. The examiner disagrees for the same reasons as stated in section ‘a’ above.
On page 9, Applicant argues that claim 1 covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. While the examiner does not acquiesce as to the validity of Applicant’s argument, whether a claim covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome is not part of the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106(III).
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the improvement disclosed and recited by claim 1 is not provided by the judicial exception alone. The examiner disagrees for the same reasons as stated in section ‘a’ above.
On page 10, Applicant submits that for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned arguments, there is no prima facie ineligibility of claims 1-20. The examiner disagrees because Applicant’s arguments were not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM EST.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights