DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant's communication filed on 03/30/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant's remarks and amendments, in response to the last Office Action, have been considered with the results that follow:
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are now pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments regarding ‘Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101’ on pages 9-11, “…applicant respectfully submits that the claims improve the operation of the computer by using key column values to reduce the amount of searching necessary…claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by employing the information provided by the judicial exception…when viewed as an ordered combination, the claim limitations amount to significantly more than an abstract idea…Memorandum at 5…Applicant respectfully submits that, when the claims are interpreted properly, this is not a close call, and the claims are directed to statutory subject matter”:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the subject matter eligibility determination of the current claims is a close call. Other than reciting “computer program”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The various claim elements merely state how different data elements/information is organized, categorized and/or selected, which may be an improvement in the information provided to the user, but not an improvement in computer technology itself. In other words, the purported reduction in searching results from organization of information, which covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and not from any improvement to computer technology. Moreover, given that the purported improvements described by the applicant are very generic and the claim recites only generic computer components, it is not clear what specific claim elements change how the computer performs searching (in order to reduce the amount of searching necessary). As such, the examiner maintains that the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea even when viewed as an ordered combination, and the rejection of the claim is maintained.
With respect to arguments regarding ‘Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)’ on page 11:
The previously raised USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of amendments made to the claims, however, the examiner notes that further 112(b) rejections and claim objections have been made corresponding to the newly added claim language/amendments (as described in corresponding sections below).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claims 1 and 11: it appears the claim limitations “generating…a second hashed row value for a row in the target dataset, wherein the second hash unique key column value for the row matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset; generating…a second hashed column value for each cell in the row in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed unique key column value matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset;” should read “generating…a second hashed row value for a row in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed unique key column value for the row matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset; generating…a second hashed column value for each cell in the row in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed unique key column value for the row matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset;”.
Examiner suggests amending the claims as appropriate for clearer scope and antecedent basis.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also objected to for the above reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11,
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations of “identifying…source dataset key columns in a source dataset that uniquely identify records in the source dataset; selecting…a subset of rows in the source dataset key columns to form a sample dataset; … identifying…target dataset key columns in a target dataset that uniquely identify records in the target dataset; … searching…the second hashed unique key column value for each row in the target dataset for one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset; identifying…one of the columns in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed column value for the identified column matches the first hashed column value; returning…a column name for the identified column.”, as drafted, is a process 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 “computer program”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “computer program” language, the claim encompasses the user looking at two sets of data (source set, target set) and identifying which particular subsets of data within the larger sets uniquely identify specific information, and further forming a sample set based on the subset of data identified within the source set. In addition, but for the “computer program” language, the claim encompasses the user looking through the set of key values corresponding to rows of data in the target set, and identifying if it contains any value matching the set of key values corresponding to rows of data in the sample set. Furthermore, but for the “computer program” language, the claim encompasses the user identifying the name/label associated with a subset of/one of the columns of data within the target set whose value matches one of the values in the source set.
The limitations “generating…a first hashed unique key column value for each row in the sample dataset; generating…a first hashed row value for each row in the sample dataset; generating…a first hashed column value for each cell in each row of the sample dataset; generating…a second hashed unique key column value for each row in the target dataset;”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship (generating hash equivalent of various data/values) and hence is an abstract idea because it simply describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111USPQ2d at 1721.
The limitations “generating…a second hashed row value for a row in the target dataset, wherein the second hash unique key column value for the row matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset; generating…a second hashed column value for each cell in the row in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed unique key matches one of the first hashed unique key column values from the sample dataset;”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship (generating hash equivalent of various data/values) and performance of the limitation in the mind (matching/comparing row/subset of data to unique subset of data in sample set) but for the recitation of generic computer components, and hence is an abstract idea because it simply describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111USPQ2d at 1721.
Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical concept and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of: ‘computer program’. The combination of this additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in the claim: ‘computer program’, is recited at a high level of generality, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The specification does not provide any indication that the program is performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20,
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Similarly, claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claims 2-10, and 12-20 recite the same abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical concept.
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the additional limitations of ‘wherein the first hashed unique key column value comprises a hash of a cell in the key column’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 13 further recite the additional limitations of ‘wherein the first hashed unique key column value comprises a hash of a cell in a plurality of the key columns’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 14 further recite the additional limitations of ‘generating… the first hashed row value for each row in the sample dataset comprises: concatenating, by the computer program, values of the cells in each row in the sample dataset; and hashing, by the computer program, the concatenated values with the unique key column value for the row.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process (concatenating values) and the abstract ideas of a mathematical concept (generating hashed values for subset of data, hashing concatenated values), and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 15 further recite the additional limitations of ‘generating… the first hashed column value for each cell in each row of the sample dataset comprises: hashing … each cell with the unique key column value for the row.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mathematical concept (hashing values), and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 16 further recite the additional limitations of ‘returning… an identification of a row in the sample dataset that does not have a matching second hashed unique key column value in the target dataset’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 17 further recite the additional limitations of ‘returning… an identification of a row in the sample dataset that has a matching second hashed row value in the target dataset.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 18 further recite the additional limitations of ‘wherein… generating… the second hashed column value for each cell in the row in the target dataset that matches one of the first hashed unique key column value from the sample dataset is in response to the first hashed row value for the row not matching.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 19 further recite the additional limitations of ‘wherein a number of rows in the sample dataset is based on a size of the source dataset.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 20 further recite the additional limitations of ‘copying… missing cells from the source dataset to the target dataset.’, which simply elaborates in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite limitations "…identifying, by the computer program, one of the columns in the target dataset, wherein the second hashed column value for the identified column matches the first hashed column value; returning, by the computer program, a column name for the identified column.”. The antecedent basis for the claim element ‘the first hashed column value’ is unclear, rendering the scope of the claims to be vague.
One of the prior limitations recites “generating, by the computer program, a first hashed column value for each cell in each row of the sample dataset;”, indicating that a plurality of “first hashed column value” is generated. It is not clear which one of the “first hashed column value” values are being matched with/ referred to in the “identifying” limitation. The examiner suggests amending the claim language to clarify scope of the claim element/limitations as intended for further consideration.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected for the above reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUGEETHA KUNJITHAPATHAM whose telephone number is (408)918-7510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PT.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights