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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 12/05/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 have been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims 11-21 have been added.
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 1-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recites generic computer components, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018)) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Guidance (Step 2B)).
Evaluate Step 2A Prong One
(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea;
(b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In TABLE 1 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 1
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A transaction log processing method, wherein a transaction is a database operation sequence for accessing and/or operating data, all logs corresponding to one transaction are written into at least two log streams in a distributed database, and the method comprises:
(b) obtaining at least two log streams from the distributed database, wherein each log stream carries a transaction identifier
“obtaining… two log stream” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can obtain a log stream by reading/observing it.
(c) determining, based on the transaction identifier carried in each log stream, whether all log streams into which all logs corresponding to one transaction are written have been obtained
“determining…whether all log streams …have been obtained” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can determine whether all log stream have been obtain by observing or counting them.
(d) upon determining that all log streams into which all logs corresponding to one transaction are written have been obtained, performing data assembly by using all the log streams to obtain transaction data corresponding to the transaction
“…performing data assembly by using all the log stream…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can assemble data from two log stream in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
In view of the above analysis, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (d) each recite a mental process. Independent claims 10, 18 also recite abstract idea because it includes similar limitations (b) – (d). Dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, and 19-21 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (d) by virtue of their dependencies to claims 1, 10 and 18, respectively.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, and 19-21 further recite additional limitations. However, these limitations are also recite abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 118 discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recites a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claims 10, 18 recite “a computing device”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, which are simply a generic computer component to store and execute computer instructions, which causes a generic computer system to perform the operations recited in limitations (b)-(d). The “computing device”, “non-transitory storage medium”, “processor”, “memory” recited in the claims are so generically that is represents no more than mere generic computer component to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at 52 n.14 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping.”)
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, the claims 1, 10, 18 “a computing device”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stigsen (US 2022/0229849 A1), hereinafter “Stigsen”.
As per claim 1, Stigsen teaches a transaction log processing method, wherein a transaction is a database operation sequence for accessing and/or operating data, all logs corresponding to one transaction are written into at least two log streams in a distributed database, and the method comprising:
“obtaining at least two log stream from the distributed database, wherein each log stream carries a transaction identifier” at [0015]-[0022] and Fig. 1;
(Stigsen teaches a distributed database comprising first database 140 and second database 145. Whenever changes are made to the data at a client device, the client device can generate a changeset. For example, when the first client 110 performs a first operation, the first client device 110 generates changesets C11, C12 (i.e. “transaction identifier”). The second client device 115 also generates changeset C21, C22. The changesets are stored in the client transaction logs (i.e., “log stream”)155a and 155b)
“determining, based on the transaction identifier carried in each log stream, whether all log streams into which all logs corresponding to one transaction are written have been obtained” at [0018]-[0019], [0031]-[0042];
(Stigsen teaches determining whether the first client device 110 obtains the changeset C21 and C22 from the server 105. The server checkpoint 175 indicates that all changesets of other client devices added to the server transaction log 150 up to the server checkpoint 175 have been downloaded/obtained. Each of the changeset is associated with a timestamp, and an operation performed on a data object)
“upon determining that all log streams into which all logs corresponding to one transaction are written have been obtained, performing data assembly by using all the log streams to obtain transaction data corresponding to the transaction” at [0020]-[0031] and Figs. 2-3.
(Stigsen teaches after downloading/obtaining the changeset C21 and C22 from the server 105, merging the local changesets C11, C12 with the remote changesets C21, C22)
Claims 10, 18 recite similar limitations as in claim 1 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-17, 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights