Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 01/22/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed PCT Application No. PCT/CN2022/117762 filed on 08 September 2022 is acknowledged by the examiner.
5. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of Chinese Application No. CN202111627860.4 filed on 28 December 2021 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Foreign priority
6. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application indicating foreign priority to CN202111627860.4 in English filed on 07/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to amendment/arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claims, thus necessitated the new ground of rejection as presented in this Office action.
Response to 101 amendments/ arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments on pages 1, 2 regarding amended claim 1 states “Applicant incorporates "comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory for the method for acquiring comprehensive arrangement data of multi-column data, and comprising program instructions for executing the following steps of "merging multiple of tables with multiple of the target column identification informations into one sorted table with one target column identification information" into claim 1 which claims a practical method that provides a "significant more". And for example, the steps, "Obtaining the sorting operation of the user on the multi-column data, and generating the corresponding sorting request information" and "obtaining from the form application sorting request information..." cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, claim 1 should be allowed as well as claims 2-13”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claim limitations "merging multiple of tables with multiple of the target column identification informations into one sorted table with one target column identification information for Improving data processing efficiently that makes a processor faster to save energy " is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. Similarly limitation “merging…” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to use the information from a form and gather and sort data related to the input information and manipulate the data and finally merge the multiple columns from multiple tables, which is performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper e as an evaluation or judgement. 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. Improving data processing efficiently that makes a processor faster to save energy is an intended use. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further the amended limitation recites additional elements of “non-transitory computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components and additional elements. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “acquiring…”, “obtaining…”, “generating…” amount to mere data gathering which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and updating the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 do not include additional elements 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 recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The “routing”, “overwriting” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
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.
9. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106; See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Pursuant to Step 1, Claim 12 recite a computing device, which are directed to a machine. Claim 13 recite a computer-readable storage medium which are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Under the 2019 PEG, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Courts also consider a mental process as one that can be performed in the human mind and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claim 1 recites a mental process because the steps recite the actions of sorting and manipulating column data but is recited at a high level of generality that merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. For example, claim 1 recites limitations of “acquiring…”, obtaining…”, :merging…”, “determining a row-column mapping relationship…”, “determining corresponding arrangement of data….” are recited at a high level of generality and do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea which is a task that can be performed by a human with the use of the computer as a tool. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In this case, as explained above, claims 1, 12 1nd 13 merely recite a mental process. These limitations describe “determining a row-column mapping relationship…”, “determining corresponding arrangement of data….”. While claims 1, 12 and 13 recite additional components in the form of “computer device”, “processor”, “storage apparatus”, “computer-readable storage medium” these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See 2019 PEG. The additional elements “obtaining sorting request…” amount to mere data gathering steps which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, it is determined whether the claims provide an inventive concept. In this case, claims 1, 12 and 13 do not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, or as explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. For example, a The “acquiring…”, obtaining…”, “generating…”, are elements that are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 2 recite “wherein the data format of the row-column mapping relationship comprises a key-value pair data format” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to look at the query map the key/ item from a row to correspond column value which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recite “obtaining table data corresponding to a plurality of tables…”, “generating the multi-column data according to the table data corresponding to the plurality of tables” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to see different tables and generate multi-column data according to the table data corresponding to the plurality of tables, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recite “the sorting rule information comprises column sorting information of the target column identification information and data sorting information of each piece of target column identification information” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to see different tables and sort the columns based on a rule, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites, “determining a row-column mapping relationship …”, “obtaining row-column mapping relationship …” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user look at the rows and column and determine the mapping based on a rule and based on the mapping sorting the data and arranging them in a sequence, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 7 and 8 recites, “combining row-column mapping relationship…” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to analyze the data, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites, “obtaining a paging request …” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to analyze the data, and limit the number of records, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites, “acquiring a value request …” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to analyze the data, based on the request, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the target column identification information comprises at least one of the following: undertaker information; obligee information; the time information of case registration; the time information of case trial” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to analyze the data, which comprises obligee information; the time information of case registration; the time information of case trial.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
10. Claims 1-7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka, Takashi (US 20040049730 A1) in view of AMZAL; Mokrane (US 20200226130 A1) and in further view of HAWS; David (US 20140164402 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ishizaka, Takashi (US 20040049730 A1) teaches, a method for acquiring comprehensive arrangement data of multi- column data in a spreadsheet form application (Paragraph [0058] discloses, multi-column data in a spreadsheet. Also see [0024]), comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056]) for the method for acquiring comprehensive arrangement data of multi-column data (Figs 8-10, Paragraph [0081] discloses, multi column data comprising a plurality of rows corresponding to plurality of columns. Also see [0021]),
Obtaining from the spreadshee(Figs 8-10 Paragraph [0086] discloses, plurality of sorted tables with muti column and rows);
determining corresponding comprehensive arrangement data according to the row identification sequence and the row data corresponding to the plurality of row identification information (Fig. 15 Paragraph [0093] The sheet merge section 15 sorts the merged table, based on the recording status of each flag. Sorting is such that first priority is given to a row where "1" is recorded in all of its flag items, and priority is then given to a row where "1" is recorded in a flag item corresponding to the table that is designated earlier. FIG. 15 shows the result of sorting. As shown in FIG. 15, as a result of sorting, rows contained in both Table A and Table B are arranged in the upper portion of the merged table, and subsequently rows contained in Table A only and then rows contained in Table B only are arranged sequentially. The tallied value of these rows represents the row that provides a relationship of logical sum between Table A and Table B. Also see [0072]).
and merging the multiple of tables with multiple of the target column identification informations into one sorted table with one target column identification information for improving data processing efficiently that makes a processor faster to save energy (Figs. 14, 15 Paragraphs [0088]-[0093] For cells of the same data under the key item as a result of the comparison by the data comparison section 14, the sheet merge section 15 functions to merge data of rows to which the relevant cells of the table designated belong to rows to which the relevant cells of the merged table belong. Also see [0074], [0102]);
improving data processing efficiently that makes a processor faster to save energy (Paragraph [0102] discloses, merging the tables in an efficiently and easy to perform. Also see [0022]).
Note: improving data processing efficiently that makes a processor faster to save energy is an intended use.
Ishizaka et al fails to explicitly teach, and comprising program instructions for executing the following steps of: Obtaining sorting operation of an user on a multi-column data from a multiple of tables, and generating a corresponding sorting request information; and the sorting request information comprises sorting rule information corresponding to the target column identification informations; in response to the sorting request information, determining a row-column mapping relationship between the plurality of row identification information and the target column identification informations according to the sorting rule information, and determining a sorted row identification sequence according to the sorting rule information and the row-column mapping relationship.
AMZAL; Mokrane (US 20200226130 A1) teaches, and comprising program instructions for executing the following steps of: Obtaining sorting operation of an user on a multi-column data from a multiple of tables, and generating a corresponding sorting request information (Paragraph [0028] he system may order all columns containing the features according a same order such as based on a key which identifies uniquely each row of the original dataset. In some embodiments, the system may also perform a sort operation in parallel on each of the database tables with on contention. Also see [0037]);
AMZAL et al also teaches, merging multiple of tables with multiple of the target column identification informations into one sorted table with one target column identification information (Paragraph [0028] discloses, merging/ combining multiple tables into one single table and the features/ columns are ordered/ sorted to match the key). Also see [0037], [0038]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishizaka et al by Obtaining sorting operation of an user on a multi-column data from a multiple of tables, and generating a corresponding sorting request information as taught by AMZAL et al (Paragraph [0028]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, would reduce the number of operations and resources needed to create a single dataset from many columns of features as taught by AMZAL et al (Paragraph [0014], [0028]).
Ishizaka et al and AMZAL et al fails to explicitly teach, and the sorting request information comprises sorting rule information corresponding to the target column identification informations; in response to the sorting request information, determining a row-column mapping relationship between the plurality of row identification information and the target column identification informations according to the sorting rule information, and determining a sorted row identification sequence according to the sorting rule information and the row-column mapping relationship.
HAWS; David (US 20140164402 A1) teaches, and the sorting request information comprises sorting rule information corresponding to the target column identification informations (Paragraph [0027] discloses, the sorting is based on lexicographical ordering);
in response to the sorting request information, determining a row-column mapping relationship between the plurality of row identification information and the target column identification informations according to the sorting rule information, and determining a sorted row identification sequence according to the sorting rule information and the row-column mapping relationship (Figs. 2-6, Paragraph [0028] discloses, row-column mapping according to lexicographical ordering);
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishizaka et al and AMZAL et al by providing and the sorting request information comprises sorting rule information corresponding to the target column identification informations; in response to the sorting request information, determining a row-column mapping relationship between the plurality of row identification information and the target column identification informations according to the sorting rule information, and determining a sorted row identification sequence according to the sorting rule information and the row-column mapping relationship as taught by HAWS et al (Paragraph [0028]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it efficiently and accurately sort data for a wide variety of applications as taught by HAWS et al (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
AMZAL et al further teaches, wherein the data format of the row-column mapping relationship comprises a key-value pair data format (Paragraph [0028] discloses, the row-column mapping relationship comprises a key-value pair data format).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Ishizaka et al further teaches, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining table data corresponding to a plurality of tables, wherein each table data comprises at least two column data, which comprise column data composed of the plurality of row identification information and generating the multi-column data according to the table data corresponding to the plurality of tables (Figs 8-10 Paragraph [0086] discloses, plurality of sorted tables with muti column and rows).
AMZAL et al also teaches, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining table data corresponding to a plurality of tables, wherein each table data comprises at least two column data, which comprise column data composed of the plurality of row identification information and generating the multi-column data according to the table data corresponding to the plurality of tables (Paragraph [0035] the system may also derive a number of features from the core dataset 310 and store in the derived features in respective tables such as tables 320, 330, and 340. Here, each of the derived features are stored in tables 320, 330, and 340, which each include columns of feature data).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
HAWS et al further teaches, wherein the sorting rule information comprises column sorting information of the target column identification informations and data sorting information of each piece of the target column identification informations (Figs. 2-6, Paragraph [0028] discloses, row-column mapping according to lexicographical ordering).
AMZAL et al also further teaches, wherein the sorting rule information comprises column sorting information of the target column identification informations and data sorting information of each piece of the target column identification informations (Paragraph [0028] the system may order all columns containing the features according a same order such as based on a key which identifies uniquely each row of the original dataset).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 4.
HAWS et al further teaches, wherein the in response to the sorting request information, determining a row-column mapping relationship between the plurality of row identification information and the target column identification information according to the sorting rule information, and determining a sorted row identification sequence according to the sorting rule information and the row-column mapping relationship (Figs. 2-6 Paragraphs [0027]-[0029] discloses row-column mapping according to lexicographical ordering);
comprises: in response to the sorting request information, obtaining a row-column mapping relationship corresponding to each column identification information according to the data sorting information of each target column identification information in the target column identification information, so as to obtain a plurality of row-column mapping relationship; and determining that sorted row identification sequence according to the plurality of row-column mapping relationship and the column sorting information (Paragraph [0028] matrix D' 300 that gives the rows of matrix D 200 sorted lexicographically after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109, where the ranking vector of D' is L':=[6,5,0,5,2,4,7,3,1,4].sup.T. FIG. 4 shows a matrix D'' 400 that gives the rows of D sorted lexicographically restricted to columns {0,3,4} after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109, where the ranking vector of D'' is L'':=[4,3,0,3,2,2,5,4,1,2].sup.T. FIG. 5 shows a matrix D''' 500 that gives the rows of D sorted lexicographically restricted to columns {0,3} after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109);
AMZAL et al also teaches, and determining that sorted row identification sequence according to the plurality of row-column mapping relationship (Paragraph [0028] discloses, sorted row identification sequence according to the plurality of row-column mapping relationship).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 5.
HAWS et al further teaches, wherein the determining that sorted row identification sequence according to the plurality of row-column mapping relationship and the column sorting information, comprises: combining the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the first column identification information and the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the subsequent column identification information in sequence according to the column sorting information until the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the last column identification information in the column sorting information is combined (Paragraph [0028] matrix D' 300 that gives the rows of matrix D 200 sorted lexicographically after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109, where the ranking vector of D' is L':=[6,5,0,5,2,4,7,3,1,4].sup.T. FIG. 4 shows a matrix D'' 400 that gives the rows of D sorted lexicographically restricted to columns {0,3,4} after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109, where the ranking vector of D'' is L'':=[4,3,0,3,2,2,5,4,1,2].sup.T. FIG. 5 shows a matrix D''' 500 that gives the rows of D sorted lexicographically restricted to columns {0,3} after a sorting operation performed by the sorting module 109), and determining the combined row-column mapping relationship after the column identification information is combined; and determining that sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship (Paragraph [0029] In one embodiment, the sorting module 109 sorts a sub-matrix (by rows) of an input matrix D restricted to a set of columns (attributes) of D utilizing an initial sorting of the columns of D. In this embodiment, each column of D is independently sorted. The results of this initial sorting of columns in D is stored in a matrix Q.epsilon..sub.+.sup.m.times.n where the j th column Q.sub.j of Q stores the row indices {0, . . . , m} after sorting the j th column D.sub.j of D. That is, Q.sub.j is one-line Cauchy notation of the permutation of the row indices which sort the column vector D.sub.j. FIG. 6 shows one example of a matrix Q 600 for the matrix D shown in FIG. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 6.
HAWS et al further teaches, wherein the combining the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the first column identification information and the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the subsequent column identification information in sequence according to the column sorting information, comprises: determining corresponding repeated row-column data from the row-column mapping relationship corresponding to the first column identification information in sequence according to the column sorting information, and combining the repeated row-column data with the row-column mapping relation corresponding to the subsequent column identification information (Paragraph [0029] In one embodiment, the sorting module 109 sorts a sub-matrix (by rows) of an input matrix D restricted to a set of columns (attributes) of D utilizing an initial sorting of the columns of D. In this embodiment, each column of D is independently sorted. The results of this initial sorting of columns in D is stored in a matrix Q.epsilon..sub.+.sup.m.times.n where the j th column Q.sub.j of Q stores the row indices {0, . . . , m} after sorting the j th column D.sub.j of D. That is, Q.sub.j is one-line Cauchy notation of the permutation of the row indices which sort the column vector D.sub.j. FIG. 6 shows one example of a matrix Q 600 for the matrix D shown in FIG. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Ishizaka et al teaches, a computer device, comprises: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus for storing computer executable instructions (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056], [0062]), which carry out the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 when the executable instruction is being executed (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Ishizaka et al teaches, a computer-readable storage medium, stores one or more compute programs/instructions (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056], [0062]), which perform the step of the method of claim 1 when executed (See the rejection of claim 1).
11. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka, Takashi (US 20040049730 A1) in view of AMZAL; Mokrane (US 20200226130 A1), HAWS; David (US 20140164402 A1) and in further view of NILSSON; JOHA (US 20200218506 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 6.
HAWS et al further teaches, wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship (Paragraph [0029] In one embodiment, the sorting module 109 sorts a sub-matrix (by rows) of an input matrix D restricted to a set of columns (attributes) of D utilizing an initial sorting of the columns of D. In this embodiment, each column of D is independently sorted. The results of this initial sorting of columns in D is stored in a matrix Q.epsilon..sub.+.sup.m.times.n where the j th column Q.sub.j of Q stores the row indices {0, . . . , m} after sorting the j th column D.sub.j of D. That is, Q.sub.j is one-line Cauchy notation of the permutation of the row indices which sort the column vector D.sub.j. FIG. 6 shows one example of a matrix Q 600 for the matrix D shown in FIG. 2).
Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al fails to explicitly teach, removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence.
NILSSON et al further teaches, wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship
removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence (Fig. 30, Paragraph [0187] element 3008 discloses, determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the row-column mapping which is element 3010-3016), wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship (Fig. 30 element 3018 and 3029 shows the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship by removing the null values. Examiner interprets Null values represents the absence of a value, indicating that a field or variable does not contain any data).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al by removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence, as taught by NILSSON et al (Fig. 30).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, a global symbol service is provided in which global symbol maps are split across machines to share the load as well as the stress on memory requirements while achieving the desired performance as taught by NILSSON et al (Paragraph [0102], [0108).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a paging request about the comprehensive arrangement data, wherein the paging request comprises corresponding paging interval information; and in response to the paging request, performing paging processing on the comprehensive arrangement data according to the paging interval information to obtain corresponding multi-page arrangement data.
NILSSON et al further teaches, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a paging request about the comprehensive arrangement data, wherein the paging request comprises corresponding paging interval information; and in response to the paging request, performing paging processing on the comprehensive arrangement data according to the paging interval information to obtain corresponding multi-page arrangement data (Fig. 30 Paragraph [0187] The filter may represent a division based on the quantity of data values present. For example, if 1,000,000 data values are present, a first filter may divide the data values into two sets of 500,000 data values, a second filter may divide out the first 250,000 data values, a third filter may divide out the second 250,000 data values, a fourth filter may divide out the third 250,000 data values, and a fifth filter may divide out the last 250,000 data values. (Based on specification Paragraph [0057] according to the paging interval information (for example, one page by three), and determines the corresponding multi-page arrangement data according to the format of three rows of data per page. Therefore examiner interprets paging interval as number of sections/ pages by dividing the data values into number of sections/ pages).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al by providing wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a paging request about the comprehensive arrangement data, wherein the paging request comprises corresponding paging interval information; and in response to the paging request, performing paging processing on the comprehensive arrangement data according to the paging interval information to obtain corresponding multi-page arrangement data, as taught by NILSSON et al (Paragraph [0187]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, a global symbol service is provided in which global symbol maps are split across machines to share the load as well as the stress on memory requirements while achieving the desired performance as taught by NILSSON et al (Paragraph [0102], [0108).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al, HAWS et al, and NILSSON et al teach, the method according to claim 9.
NILSSON et al further teaches, wherein the method further comprises: acquiring a value request of the multi-page arrangement data, wherein the value request comprises the page number of corresponding value page; and responding to the value request, determining the page data corresponding to the value page from the multi-page arrangement data (Fig. 30 Paragraph [0188] As shown FIG. 30, 3008 indicates example filter divisions for a filter f.sub.1, a filter f.sub.2, and a filter f.sub.3. Filter f.sub.1 represents a division between the first half and the second half of the data values (e.g., quantity-based). Filter f.sub.2 represents a division between the first quarter and the second quarter of the data values. Filter f.sub.3 represents a division between the third quarter and the fourth quarter of the data values. “Satisfies” or “does not satisfy” as used herein may be used to indicate that a data value falls within one side or another side of a division established by a filter. Additional successive filters may be implemented indicated by filter fn).
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaka, Takashi (US 20040049730 A1) in view of AMZAL; Mokrane (US 20200226130 A1), HAWS; David (US 20140164402 A1) and in further view of YUAN, LU (CN 112651820 A).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the target column identification information comprises at least one of the following: undertaker information; obligee information; the time information of case registration; the time information of case trial.
YUAN et al teaches, wherein the target column identification information comprises at least one of the following: undertaker information; obligee information; the time information of case registration; the time information of case trial (Page 2, Lines 43-45 according to the corresponding relation of the identification information of the collection group and the attribute information of the account, determining the identification information of the collection group corresponding to the attribute information of the target account; the identification information of the collection group corresponding to the attribute information of the target account; determining the identification information of the target collection group corresponding to the target to-be-induced case information of the target).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ishizaka et al, AMZAL et al and HAWS et al by providing wherein the target column identification information comprises at least one of the following: undertaker information; obligee information; the time information of case registration; the time information of case trial, as taught by YUAN et al et al (Page 2, Lines 43-45).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the rule engine configuration is matched with the case information of the target distribution rule, improving the receiving success rate of the case to be sent YUAN et al et al (Page 2, Line 10, Abstract).
Closest Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
FAN, YU (CN 108874798 A) teaches, The invention claims a big data ordering method and system. for large data ordering for one application, the file number and file size reading order data corresponding to the device according to the application, start N threads and read rows of content of the data file. data conversion for obtaining each thread for carrying out the content of the file to be ordered, and sends data ordering request to the corresponding data ordering device according to data belonging to data interval of the to-be-ordering, data ordering device the data carried in the data ordering request ordering according to the ordering rule; When all the data ordering device finishes data ordering, ordering server reading the sequencing result device according to the size and ordering rules of the boundary value of the data interval, in turn corresponding to each data area on the obtained data after sorting, after ordering as the application corresponding to the data. the method can avoid the problem of inclination data, and can improve the sorting efficiency of the data (Abstract).
14. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references 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 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 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, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163