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 .
This is a non-final Office Action in response to the present US application number 18/790440, filed on 07/31/2024. This application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/808961, filed 06/24/2022, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,086,161, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/203148, filed 07/09/2021.
In the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/21/2024; Claims 1-33 are canceled. Claims 34-48 are new and presented for examination, with claims 34, 39 and 44 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: This application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/808961, filed 06/24/2022, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,086,161, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/203148, filed 07/09/2021. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 34, 39 and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,161; since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application, claims 34, 39 and 44, are fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
INSTANT APPLICATION: 18/790,440
PATENT: 12,086,161
34. A system for transforming at least one statement into at least one hierarchical data space operation, the system comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and
a processor that executes the instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising:
selecting at least one element of the at least one statement;
determining at least one column for the at least one element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
39. A method for transforming at least one statement into at least one hierarchical data space operation, the method comprising:
selecting, by utilizing instructions from a memory that are executed by a processor, at least one element of the at least one statement;
determining at least one column for the at least one element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
44. A computer readable device, which when loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations for transforming at least one statement into at least one hierarchical data space comprising:
selecting at least one element of the at least one statement;
determining at least one column for the at least one element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
1.A system for transforming a statement into at least one hierarchical data space operation, the system comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and
a processor that executes the instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising:
analyzing the statement to produce at least one transformed statement;
selecting at least one element of the at least one transformed statement;
determining at least one column for the at least one element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
11. A method for transforming a statement into at least one hierarchical data space operation, the method comprising:
analyzing, by utilizing instructions from a memory that are executed by a processor, the statement to produce at least one transformed statement;
selecting at least one element of the at least one transformed statement;
determining at least one column for the at least one element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the first logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space; associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
21. A computer readable device, which when loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
analyzing, by utilizing instructions from a memory that are executed by a processor, a statement to produce at least one transformed statement;
selecting at least one element of the at least one transformed statement;
determining at least one column for the at least element;
generating at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the first logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the hierarchical data space operation.
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 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 44 is drawn to a computer program product comprising a "computer-readable device", which is not limited to statutory subject matter. In view of Applicant's specification paragraph [0100]; (e.g. The "machine-readable medium," "machine-readable device," or "computer-readable device" may be non-transitory, and, in certain embodiments, may not include a wave or signal per se). The terms: “may be, in certain embodiments, may not” are optional language and does not limit the "computer-readable device" to only statutory embodiments. Thus, under the claim's broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicants' Specification, the term "computer-readable device" include both statutory and non-statutory subject matter. Accordingly, claim 44 is non-statutory and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: "A non-transitory computer readable device".
Subsequently, claims 45-48 are also considered to be nonstatutory under 35 USC 101 as being dependent on independent claim 44.
Claims 34-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 34, 39 and 44
Step 1: Claim 34 recites “A system …”; therefore, the claim is a machine. Claim 39 recites “A method …”; the claim recites a series of steps and; therefore, is a process. Claim 15 recites “A computer readable device …”; therefore, the claim is a manufacture.
Independent claims 34, 39 and 44 recite limitations of:
selecting (insignificant extra-solution activity) at least one element of the at least one statement;
determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one column for the at least one element;
generating (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one hierarchical data space operation for the at least one element comprising:
extracting (insignificant extra-solution activity) at least one value from the at least one element for the at least one column;
determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one first logical hierarchical data space for the at least one column, wherein the logical hierarchical data space is a space that is divided into a set of subdivisions, wherein each subdivision is recursively subdivided until a maximum depth is reached or the at least one value is no longer contained in a single subdivision, wherein the maximum depth is specified in a hierarchical data space definition for the first logical hierarchical data space;
generating (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one first hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its first logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its first logical hierarchical data space;
associating (insignificant extra-solution activity) the at least one first hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation;
determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one second hierarchical data space;
generating (a mental step that using generic computer component) at least one second hierarchical path identifier for the at least one value that preserves the hierarchy of its second logical hierarchical data space, wherein each value corresponds to at least one subdivision of its second hierarchical data space; and
associating (insignificant extra-solution activity) the at least one second hierarchical path identifier with the at least one hierarchical data space operation.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: determining …, generating …; are processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is , other than reciting “a memory”, “a processor”, “a computer readable device”, in claims 39 and 44. They are computer components; nothing in the claims elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components 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 (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: selecting …, extracting …, associating … ; the limitations are mere generic gathering/collecting and analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, these additional limitations are recited as being performed by “a memory”, “a processor”, “a computer readable device”, in claims 39 and 44, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations: selecting …, extracting …, associating … ; are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) gathering/collecting and analyzing data, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements performing by “a memory”, “a processor”, “a computer readable device” in limitations selecting …, extracting …, associating … , are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Since, claims 1 and 8 are directed to abstract ideas; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 35-38, 40-43 and 45-48
The limitations as recited in claims 35-38, 40-43 and 45-48 are simply describe the concepts for transforming data. The claims do not include additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 35-38, 40-43 and 45-48 are directed to abstract ideas and are not patent eligible. Analysis of the dependent claims are shown below.
Dependent claim 35 recites the limitations:
selecting at least one second element of the at least one statement; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
generating at least one second hierarchical data space operation for the at least one second element; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
computing a union of the at least one subdivision of the at least one first hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one first hierarchical data space operation and the at least one subdivision of the at least one first hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one second hierarchical data space operation; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas; and
computing a union of the at least one subdivision of the at least one second hierarchical path identifier associated with he at least one first hierarchical data space operation and the at least one subdivision of the at least one second hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one second hierarchical data space operation; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 36 recites the limitations: utilizing a user attribute verification score threshold to determine the subset of user identifiers by:
selecting at least one second element of the at least one statement; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
generating at least one second hierarchical data space operation for the at least one second element; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
computing the intersection of the at least one subdivision of the at least one first hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one first hierarchical data space operation and the at least one subdivision of the at least one first hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one second hierarchical data space operation; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas; and
computing the intersection of the at least one subdivision of the at least one second hierarchical path identifier associated with he at least one first hierarchical data space operation and the at least one subdivision of the at least one second hierarchical path identifier associated with the at least one second hierarchical data space operation; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 37 recites the limitations:
selecting at least one second element of the at least one statement; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
determining at least one second column for the at least one second element; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
extracting at least one second value from the at least one second element for the at least one second column; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
mapping the at least one value to at least one dimension of the at least one first logical hierarchical data space; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas; and
mapping the at least one second value to at least one dimension of the at least one first logical hierarchical data space; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 38 recites the limitations, wherein the at least one second logical hierarchical data space is a compound hierarchical data space and wherein generating at least one second hierarchical path identifier further comprises:
selecting at least one second element of the at least one statement; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
extracting at least one second value from the at least one second element; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
mapping the at least one value to at least one dimension of the at least one second logical hierarchical data space; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas; and
mapping the at least one second value to at least one dimension of the at least one second logical hierarchical data space; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 40-43 and 45-48 are similar to claims 35-38; therefore, claims 40-43 and 45-48 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 35-38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-48 would be allowable if overcome double patenting and 35 U.S.C. § 101 issues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CECILE H VO whose telephone number is (571)270-3031. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9AM-5PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. 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.
/CECILE H VO/Examiner, Art Unit 2153 3/19/2025
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153