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 .
REMARKS
On page 12, Applicant argues in the field of computer science and the present claims, "inference" is a technical term of art referring to the automated execution of a machine-learning model or statistical algorithm on input data. The claims do not recite a human "concluding" a result; they recite a machine-driven process of generating digital variants (via regex and split-and-take). Further, Applicant argues “calculating a "sparse pairwise similarity matrix." A human mind cannot generate, store, or process millions of digital variants across networked nodes in real-time. Therefore, the "inference" here is a machine-state transition, not a mental process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the invention as claimed does not preclude the mental process embodiment.
Applicant argues Examiner identifies mathematical operations like Jensen Shannon divergence and sparse pairwise similarity matrix as abstract. However, as held in McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., the use of mathematical rules to achieve a technological result is patent-eligible. These calculations are the specific tools required to handle high-dimensional data in a distributed environment. They are not pure math done in a vacuum but are integrated into a system for automated lineage discovery where no metadata exists. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed invention as a whole falls within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
On page 13, Applicant argues “Attempting to map lineages across heterogeneous tables without the claimed sorting and pruning modules would lead to a state explosion. In a distributed computing environment, this would exhaust hardware memory and increase latency to the point of system failure. The claims provide a technical architecture to prevent this.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted improvement is not reflected in the claims as supported by the specification.
Applicant argues “pruning of columns for low revised estimates of coverage is a technical resource-management rule. By removing unlikely lineages, the system optimizes the distributed and parallel processing nodes, ensuring the hardware processor is not overwhelmed. This is a clear improvement to the functioning of the data processing system itself, moving beyond generic automation.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted improvement is not reflected in the claims as supported by the specification or understood by one of ordinary skill it the art.
Applicant argues Examiner cites Credit Acceptance to argue mere automation. However, that case involved automating a well-known manual process (loan applications). These claims involve high-dimensional statistical transformations of digital data that have no manual or paper and pencil analog. One cannot manually synchronize statistical divergence scores across a distributed network of millions of data cells in real-time. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted improvement is not reflected in the claims as supported by the specification or understood by one of ordinary skill it the art.
On pages 13-14, Applicant argues Examiner argues that novelty is irrelevant to section 101. Applicant points out that under Berkheimer V. HP Inc., whether a combination of elements is well-understood, routine, or conventional is a factual inquiry relevant to step 2b. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”
On page 14, Applicant argues the significantly more resides in the synergy between the modules. The variation generation module creates the necessary search space, the comparison module reduces that space for efficiency, and the mutual information module identifies the lineage via loss-value triggers. This ordered combination automates a task (lineage discovery without metadata) previously impossible for a generic computer to perform accurately. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted significantly more is not reflected in the claims as supported by the specification or understood by one of ordinary skill it the art.
On page 14, Applicant argues Examiner claims Jensen Shannon divergence can be done with paper and pencil. Applicant notes that the claims require this calculation to be performed on variants across networked nodes. A human with a pencil cannot synchronize and calculate statistical divergence across a distributed network of millions of data cells in real- time. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the invention as claimed does not preclude the mental process embodiment.
On page 14, Applicant argues Under the Machine-or- Transformation test, which remains a useful clue for eligibility, the claimed process is tied to a specific machine environment (a distributed system) that is required to handle the volume of data described. The pruning of columns based on revised estimates is a specific resource-management rule that prevents hardware memory exhaustion which is a technical improvement to the computer's operation itself. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted specialized hardware and/or technical improvement is not reflected in the claims as supported by the specification or understood by one of ordinary skill it the art.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16, filed March 26, 2026, are examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16 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.
Claim 1, lines 35-36, recites “matching pairs that are highly dissimilar…” which causes the claim to be vague and indefinite because the claim is not clear as to the criteria to ascertain matching pairs to be “highly dissimilar.” Clarification of the metes and bounds is required. The same issue is present in claims 10 and 16. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1 or 10, respectively.
Claim 1, lines 46-47, recites “a hand of matches” which causes the claim to be vague and indefinite because the claim is not clear as to the criteria to ascertain “a handful of matches.” Clarification of the metes and bounds is required. The same issue is present in claims 10 and 16. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1 or 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16 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.
Step 1:
The claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16 recite a system, a method, and a computer-readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “compute, use one or more column-similarity functions, a table similarity”, “compute an inverse document frequency term”, “compute a term frequency”, “compute a sparse pairwise similarity matrix…”, “computer a min-hash similarity”, “sort the columns”, “revise a plurality of estimates”, “prune the column”, “calculate a histogram-based similarity”, “map a plurality of entries”, “calculate a score between the two histograms”, “compute an artificial intelligence embedding by calculating an embedding for each column”, “build a supervised regression model”, “rank importance of each feature”, and “stop the iterative removal of the feature” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil and/or mathematical calculations. The limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”) and/or mathematical calculations.
Claims 10 and 16 recite a method and a computer-readable medium having the same steps as claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a “a hardware processor”, “memory”, “a server”, “a network”, “a transformation module”, “a variation generation module”, “a comparison mode”, “a sorting module”, “a similar descriptors transformation module”, and “a mutual information module”, wherein they recite as generic elements of the system, method, or computer-readable medium. The “a hardware processor”, “memory”, “a server”, “a network”, “a transformation module”, “a variation generation module”, “a comparison mode”, “a sorting module”, “a similar descriptors transformation module”, and “a mutual information module” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a hardware processor”, “memory”, “a server”, “a network”, “a transformation module”, “a variation generation module”, “a comparison mode”, “a sorting module”, “a similar descriptors transformation module”, and “a mutual information module” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 3 recites the split and take transformation comprises splitting of text according to a user-supplied regular expression and taking a specific index from the split. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites the no transformation is applied if a variant generator is un-specified. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites the comparison module is configured to aggregate the column-variation similarities to compute the column-level similarities. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites the comparison module is configured to compute term frequency—inverse document frequency to obtain the table similarity. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites the transformation module is configured to remove unlikely column lineage content. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites the plurality of metrics comprises at least one of an Euclidean distance, a dot product, and a cosine similarity. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites starting, iterative removal of one feature from the numerical source columns. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 12 recites providing, an inferred lineage via matched content. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites extending, a prior algorithm to use a plurality of descriptors of the data in a column. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 14 recites providing, a plurality of type of inferred lineage comprising at least one of a matched content, a similar descriptor, and a mutual information. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 15 recites computing, artificial intelligence embedded similarity by computing embedding for each column and computing similarities among them via a plurality of metrics. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, mathematical calculations, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
PERTINTENT PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chandrahasan et al. (US 2022/0342869 A1), discloses the column profiles may identify patterns relating to how the column has been historically derived. As such, a column profile for a given column may include a usage profile and a derivation profile. The column profiles, in some example embodiments, are generated based on the lineage data and/or business glossary data. For example, the lineage data may track all data transformations that have happened on each column in each dataset, and the glossary data may specify the entity or concept represented by each column. In one or more embodiments, a group of columns describing a same entity or concept can be identified based at least in part on glossary data, and a consolidated column profile can be derived for each group. Each new transformation may be compared with the column profiles and marked as anomalous in response to the new column not matching the patterns identified by the column profiles. Also, an example embodiment may include identifying anomalous transformations using the column profiles as well as data quality results and constraint analytics ([0013]).
Thompson et al. (US 11,003,645 B1) discloses the resource dependency system may generate, store, manage, and access the data dependencies and data transformations associated with 2 the provenance/lineage of columns. It may also be able to generate a corresponding user interface based on selected column(s) of data that displays an updated visual node graph, which can conveying the data dependencies and data transformations associated with the provenance/lineage of 2 the selected columns, in a manner that provides additional flexibility, efficiency, and speed to a user analyzing the data pipeline and its data dependencies, while also increasing the depth of knowledge that can be gleaned from a quick glance of the visual node graph (column 3, lines 18-30).
PRIOR ART STATUS
Claims 1, 10, and 16 as a whole are free of any prior art. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 are free of any prior due to be dependent from claim 1, 10, or 16.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights