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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 05/19/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. 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.
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of Chinese Application No. CN202111627860.4 filed on 28 December 2021 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Response to Affidavit
5. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 05/19/2026 is insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection as it restates the identified abstract idea as set forth in the last Office action. Please see the response to 101 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recites the limitation “wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship”. The claim limitation recites the term “combined row-column mapping relationship” which has no earlier recitation or limitation of “combined row-column mapping relationship” and therefore is unclear how the claim is determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Response to 101 amendments/ arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments on page 1 regarding amended claim 1 states “Claim 1 has been amended to explicitly require: "wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship, comprises removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence. " This limitation cannot be performed in the human mind, nor is it a method of organizing human activity”….“Humans performing mental operations do not computationally construct key-value pair arrays, execute matrix intersection algorithms, and execute programmatic loops to filter out null arrays to optimize processor utilization. The claimed method directly improves the functioning of the computer system by minimizing downstream computational load and memory allocation during complex, multi-table dataset merges. Therefore, the claims are integrated into a practical application and provide "significantly more" than an abstract idea. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is respectfully requested”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claim limitations "wherein the determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship, comprises removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence” 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 sort the rows by gathering the data based on row-column mapping and manipulate the data by removing the null values if present in the mapping to obtain the sorted columns based on the requested information, 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. Determining the sorted row identification sequence based on removing the null values in the row-column mapping is Insufficient to overcome Patent Eligibility. 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 “acquiring…”, “obtaining…”, “generating…” elements 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 1-7, 9-13 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….”, “determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship, comprises removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence” 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….”, “determining the sorted row identification sequence according to the combined row-column mapping relationship, comprises removing null values in the combined row-column mapping relationship to obtain the sorted row identification sequence” 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 and 7 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.
Allowable Subject matter
10. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are allowable, subject to overcoming the 112 (b) and 101 rejection.
Closest Prior art
11. 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).
12. 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
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights