DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
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 of mental processes and/or math without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the mental processes of receiving, by execution of one or more processors, a data value; inferring, from the data value, one or more constraints; determining, from the one or more constraints, one of a plurality of data types to assign to the data value; and assigning the one of the plurality of data types to the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value, infer a constraint, and assign or categorize data into a type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 2, the claim recites the mental processes whereby the one or more constraints are further inferred based on metadata associated with the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value and infer a constraint based on metadata, or data about data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 3, the claim recites the mental processes of identifying one or more patterns in the data value (A person can mentally identify patterns in data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 4, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the one of the plurality of data types is further determined based on the one or more patterns (A person can mentally determine a data type by observing a pattern).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 5, the claim recites the mental of receiving one or more validly classified values, each of the one or more validly classified values being associated with an assigned data type; updating, based on metadata associated with the one of more validly classified values, the plurality of data types (A person can mentally receive a classified value, and subsequently update a data type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 6, the claim recites the mental processes of receiving one or more customized constraints; and updating, based on the one or more customized constraints, the plurality of data types (A person can mentally receive a constraint and use that to update a data type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 7, the claim recites the mental processes receiving a selection of a data source and attributes to analyze within the data source; extracting a plurality of data values from the data source; processing the plurality of data values according to the attributes (A person can mentally receive a data and process them according to attributes).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data specifically in the claim, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 8, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the data value is one of a structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data value (A person can mentally acknowledge that the data value is one of a structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data value).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 9, the claim recites the mental processes of receiving, by execution of one or more processors, a data value; inferring, from the data value, one or more constraints; determining, from the one or more constraints, one of a plurality of data types to assign to the data value; and assigning the one of the plurality of data types to the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value, infer a constraint, and assign or categorize data into a type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 10, the claim recites the mental processes whereby the one or more constraints are further inferred based on metadata associated with the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value and infer a constraint based on metadata, or data about data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 11, the claim recites the mental processes of identifying one or more patterns in the data value (A person can mentally identify patterns in data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 12, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the one of the plurality of data types is further determined based on the one or more patterns (A person can mentally determine a data type by observing a pattern).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 13, the claim recites the mental of receiving one or more validly classified values, each of the one or more validly classified values being associated with an assigned data type; updating, based on metadata associated with the one of more validly classified values, the plurality of data types (A person can mentally receive a classified value, and subsequently update a data type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 14, the claim recites the mental processes of receiving one or more customized constraints; and updating, based on the one or more customized constraints, the plurality of data types (A person can mentally receive a constraint and use that to update a data type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 15, the claim recites the mental processes receiving a selection of a data source and attributes to analyze within the data source; extracting a plurality of data values from the data source; processing the plurality of data values according to the attributes (A person can mentally receive a data and process them according to attributes).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data specifically in the claim, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 16, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the data value is one of a structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data value (A person can mentally acknowledge that the data value is one of a structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data value).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 17, the claim recites the mental processes of receiving, by execution of one or more processors, a data value; inferring, from the data value, one or more constraints; determining, from the one or more constraints, one of a plurality of data types to assign to the data value; and assigning the one of the plurality of data types to the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value, infer a constraint, and assign or categorize data into a type).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 18, the claim recites the mental processes whereby the one or more constraints are further inferred based on metadata associated with the data value (A person can mentally receive a data value and infer a constraint based on metadata, or data about data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 19, the claim recites the mental processes of identifying one or more patterns in the data value (A person can mentally identify patterns in data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 20, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the one of the plurality of data types is further determined based on the one or more patterns (A person can mentally determine a data type by observing a pattern).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christopher Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent 10,546,001)
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Nguyen teaches:
receiving, by execution of one or more processors, a data value (see column 1, line 60 – column 2, line 7, where the system receives data, and associated attributes);
inferring, from the data value, one or more constraints (see column 18, lines 45 – 55, where constraints are inferred);
determining, from the one or more constraints, one of a plurality of data types to assign to the data value (see column 4, line 60 – column 5, line 17, where data may be of different types also see column 10, lines 23 – 34, and column 10, line 66 – column 11, line 11, where a type is assigned to data); and
assigning the one of the plurality of data types to the data value (see column 20, lines 23 – 34, where a type is assigned to data).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Nguyen teaches:
wherein the one or more constraints are further inferred based on metadata associated with the data value (see column 18, lines 45 – 55, where constraints are inferred using metadata like keywords).
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, Nguyen teaches:
identifying one or more patterns in the data value (see column 11, lines 12 – 22, where patterns are identified).
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Nguyen teaches:
wherein the one of the plurality of data types is further determined based on the one or more patterns (see column 11, lines 12 – 22, where patterns are identified using the type).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Nguyen teaches:
receiving one or more validly classified values, each of the one or more validly classified values being associated with an assigned data type (see column 10, line 66 – column 11, line 11, where data values may be classified in categories);
updating, based on metadata associated with the one of more validly classified values, the plurality of data types (see column 10, line 66 – column 11, line 11, where data values may be classified in categories, taking into account the type).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Nguyen teaches:
receiving one or more customized constraints (see column 15, lines 8 – 14, where custom constraints are received and types updated); and
updating, based on the one or more customized constraints, the plurality of data types (see column 15, lines 8 – 14, where custom constraints are received and types updated).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Nguyen teaches:
receiving a selection of a data source and attributes to analyze within the data source (see column 1, line 60 – column 2, line 24, where the system receives data from a data set (source), and associated attributes to analyze);
extracting a plurality of data values from the data source (see column 1, line 60 – column 2, line 24, where the system extracts data);
processing the plurality of data values according to the attributes (see column 1, line 60 – column 2, line 24, where the system processes data using attributes).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Nguyen teaches:
wherein the data value is one of a structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data value (see column 3, lines 48 – 57, where data may be structured or unstructured).
Conclusion/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167 January 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights