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 office action is in response to the claimed invention filed on December 06, 2024, in which claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 06, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method
Claims 9-16 are directed to an apparatus.
Claim 17 is directed to a device.
Therefore, claims 1-17 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
"determining a data column involved under a set filtering condition in the database table as a target column, wherein the database table has Boolean strings corresponding to the data sets respectively, and a Boolean bit in each Boolean string corresponds to a virtual row number of a data row in the corresponding data set" in claims 1, 9 and 17, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation, judgement and/or a math calculation. One can mentally determine a data column involved under a set filtering condition in the database table. Additionally, wherein the database table has Boolean strings is a math calculation.
" determine a Boolean string corresponding to a data set in which latest data of the data row is located" in claims 1, 9 and 17, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation, judgement and/or a math calculation. One can mentally determine a Boolean string corresponding to a data set. Additionally, wherein the Boolean strings is a math calculation.
" determining whether the latest data meet the filtering condition " in claims 1, 9 and 17, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation, judgement and/or a math calculation. One can mentally determine whether the latest data meet the filtering condition.
"determining a filtering result based on each Boolean string after the value assignment" in claims 1, 9 and 17, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation, judgement and/or a math calculation. One can mentally determine a filtering result based on each Boolean string. Additionally, wherein the Boolean strings is a math calculation.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system" is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “performing searching in the incremental data set and the baseline data set for each data row corresponding to the target column, and assigning a value to a corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for a virtual row number of the data row in the data set based on a determining result” recite insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “at least one processor; and a storage” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “performing and assigning steps” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the “at least one processor; and a storage” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 9 and 17 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein assigning a value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set based on a determining result specifically comprises: assigning a first value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if the determining result is yes, to indicate retention after filtering, or assigning a second value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if the determining result is no, to indicate discarding after the filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “determining whether the latest data exist in the incremental data set or the baseline data set; and determining, if the latest data exist in the incremental data set and the data of the data row also exist in the baseline data set, the Boolean string corresponding to the baseline data set, and assigning a second value to a corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for a virtual row number of the data row in the baseline data set, to indicate discarding after filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites “determining assigned values of a same Boolean bit respectively corresponding to a plurality of single filtering conditions comprised in the compound filtering condition; correspondingly performing a Boolean bit operation between the corresponding assigned values based on a compound operation of the plurality of single filtering conditions in the compound filtering condition; and determining whether the latest data meet the compound filtering condition based on a result of the Boolean bit operation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein after determining the Boolean string corresponding to the data set in which latest data of the data row is located, the method further comprises: determining whether the latest data of the data row comprise a deletion mark; and assigning the second value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if yes, to indicate discarding after the filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein determining the filtering result based on each Boolean string after the value assignment specifically comprises: determining a data row corresponding to the Boolean bit with the first value in each Boolean string after the value assignment as a retained data row; and determining the filtering result based on each retained data row”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining the filtering result specifically comprises: determining a virtual row number corresponding to the first Boolean bit with the first value in the Boolean string corresponding to the baseline data set as a first row number; determining a virtual row number corresponding to the first Boolean bit with the first value in the Boolean string corresponding to the incremental data set as a second row number; determining a first data row identifier corresponding to the first row number and a second data row identifier corresponding to the second row number, wherein both the first data row identifier and the second data row identifier are primary keys or physical addresses; comparing a size of the first data row identifier with a size of the second data row identifier, and taking the data row corresponding to the data row identifier with a smaller size as a retained data row; determining a virtual row number corresponding to a next Boolean bit with the first value corresponding to the data row identifier with a smaller size, to continue the above-mentioned process of comparing and taking a data row until processing of the Boolean strings corresponding to the baseline data set and the incremental data set is completed; and determining each retained data row as the filtering result.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the data row is snapshot data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “wherein assigning a value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set based on a determining result specifically comprises: assigning a first value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if the determining result is yes, to indicate retention after filtering, or assigning a second value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if the determining result is no, to indicate discarding after the filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “determining whether the latest data exist in the incremental data set or the baseline data set; and determining, if the latest data exist in the incremental data set and the data of the data row also exist in the baseline data set, the Boolean string corresponding to the baseline data set, and assigning a second value to a corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for a virtual row number of the data row in the baseline data set, to indicate discarding after filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “determining assigned values of a same Boolean bit respectively corresponding to a plurality of single filtering conditions comprised in the compound filtering condition; correspondingly performing a Boolean bit operation between the corresponding assigned values based on a compound operation of the plurality of single filtering conditions in the compound filtering condition; and determining whether the latest data meet the compound filtering condition based on a result of the Boolean bit operation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “wherein after determining the Boolean string corresponding to the data set in which latest data of the data row is located, the method further comprises: determining whether the latest data of the data row comprise a deletion mark; and assigning the second value to the corresponding Boolean bit in the Boolean string for the virtual row number of the data row in the data set if yes, to indicate discarding after the filtering”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites “wherein determining the filtering result based on each Boolean string after the value assignment specifically comprises: determining a data row corresponding to the Boolean bit with the first value in each Boolean string after the value assignment as a retained data row; and determining the filtering result based on each retained data row”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites “wherein determining the filtering result specifically comprises: determining a virtual row number corresponding to the first Boolean bit with the first value in the Boolean string corresponding to the baseline data set as a first row number; determining a virtual row number corresponding to the first Boolean bit with the first value in the Boolean string corresponding to the incremental data set as a second row number; determining a first data row identifier corresponding to the first row number and a second data row identifier corresponding to the second row number, wherein both the first data row identifier and the second data row identifier are primary keys or physical addresses; comparing a size of the first data row identifier with a size of the second data row identifier, and taking the data row corresponding to the data row identifier with a smaller size as a retained data row; determining a virtual row number corresponding to a next Boolean bit with the first value corresponding to the data row identifier with a smaller size, to continue the above-mentioned process of comparing and taking a data row until processing of the Boolean strings corresponding to the baseline data set and the incremental data set is completed; and determining each retained data row as the filtering result.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the data row is snapshot data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 9 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it appears that the claim is a software per-se and does not include a physical hardware to perform the steps set forth in the claim.
Claims 10-16 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080133570 (involved in constructing queries from a set of query conditions. The query conditions are grouped using logical operators to generate a database query. Query conditions within a group may be connected using a logical "OR" operator and groups of query conditions may be connected using a logical "AND" operator. Once generated, the database query may be presented to a user for review.)
US 20190102389 (involved in storing a JSON document tree in a single SQL database table by defining a schema to store JSON nodes in the table and converting each JSON document into a corresponding set of rows in the table using the schema to encode a hierarchical relationship of nodes and sub-nodes into a path that specifies a node path to a root node for each node. Embodiments further receiving a SQL query to retrieve a specific sub-document, responding to the query by returning all rows of the table belonging to the sub-document, and inflating the returned rows back into a JSON expression using the path to guide reconstruction of the original JSON document tree.)
US 11,119,997 (involved in an in-memory row storage architecture can be provided. In some implementations, the system performs operations comprising adding a data row to an in-memory row store at a row location based on a database operation, indexing the row location in an index table comprising a plurality of nodes for a plurality of rows in the in-memory row store, the plurality of nodes organized across a plurality of buckets, and accessing the data row at the row location in the in-memory row store based on the index table to perform another database operation on the data row Related systems).
US 10,762,068 (involved in implementing virtual columns in a column store database is provided. In some implementations, the system performs operations including accessing a database table in a column store database system, the database table comprising at least one virtual column, the column store database system storing data in a column-oriented structure. The operations further include calculating a value for the at least one virtual column based on at least one existing column of the database table, the calculated value mapped to a row identifier associated with a row of the database table. The operations further include providing, in response to a query, the calculated value to a user interface, the query associated with the row identifier.)
US 20200125660 (involved in detecting a request for a change related to a first data row of a first table in a first database. A unique record identifier of the first data row is identified. A first search of a change index is performed for an index entry corresponding to the first data row such that the first search based on the unique record identifier. Each index entry includes a date and time indicating a last change related to a corresponding data row. The index entry corresponding to the first data row is updated with a first date and time indicating the change related to the first data row. The data rows are identified that are changed subsequent to a prior date and time by performing a second search of the change index for index entries containing a date and time that is greater than the prior date and time.)
US20200065392 (involved in initiating a first migration of data rows in a source data set in a first source storage device to a target data set in a first target storage device. The first migration to be performed according to a native sequence of the data rows, where a block size defined for the target data set is equal to a block size defined for the reorganization source data set. During the first migration, a first user request for access to a first data row in the source data set is received. The first data row was migrated to a first target block in the target data set is determined. The first user request using the first data row in the first target block responded).
US20190354602 (involved in initiating a first migration of data rows in a source dataset in a source storage device to a target dataset in a target storage device. A block size defined for the target dataset is different than a block size defined for the source dataset. During the first migration, a user request for access to a first data row in the source dataset is received. Upon determining that the first data row was migrated to a first target block in the target dataset, the first target block is loaded from the target dataset into a first buffer in memory. The first data row in the first target block is used in response to the request.)
US 20190311051 (involved in accessing a database table in a column store database system, where the database table comprises a virtual column and the column store database system stores data in a column-oriented structure. The processor calculates a value for the virtual column based on existing column of the database table, where the calculated value is mapped to a row identifier associated with a row of the database table. The processor provides the calculated value to a user interface in response to a query, where the query is associated with the row identifier.)
US20170103096 (involves in assessing a database table, which has rows of data. The execution of query is halted, when the database table has no rows of data. The data is placed in the database table. The data is returned in the database table. The execution of the query is resumed, when the data is returned to database. The data is deleted from the database table).
US 20160196310 (involved in providing a relational database table having multiple rows and columns such that each column has a column name descriptive of data in the column. A RDBMS is provided to manage access to the relational database table. At least one metadata tag is provided to some of the columns. The columns corresponding to the metadata tag in the relational database table are searched by a search and join function of the RDBMS to find data matching the search string in some of the columns corresponding to metadata tag.)
US 20110246436 (involved in receiving a request to locate at least one compressed data row of one or more compressed data rows in a data block. A data row pointer is determined for least one compressed data row. A sub-block is determined within data block in which one compressed data row resides based on a row map data structure, where row map data structure is contained in data block and includes binary one eighth physical address points obtained by dividing data block into eight sub-blocks. A compressed data row is located in determined sub-block.)
US20090063436 (involved in generating a syntax tree representing semantic information of a query statement such that the query statement is having a Boolean parameter and implemented as an SQL object. The Boolean parameter is a numeric value or a string to map the SQL object with a relational database. A data type of the Boolean parameter is predicted based on the semantic information obtained from the syntax tree. The SQL object is mapped with the predicted data type of the Boolean parameter corresponding to a data entry of the relational database.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights