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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 9 are objected to as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention. The claims recite making a determination on whether processing after conversion increases speed versus before conversion. However, it remains unclear what steps, if any, are taken once the determination is made. An 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites “extract from a plurality of the detected first code blocks, a plurality of second code blocks between which two-dimensional array data targeted by the first function code is the same, and aggregate computation code included in the first code is the same”; “select key columns to be used for a link table that is obtained by reducing the number of key columns of the target two-dimensional array data, based on the aggregate computation code included in the second code blocks and key columns of the target two-dimensional array data”; “generate third code using the first function code, the selected key columns, and the aggregate computation code, and adding the generated third code at a beginning of the second code blocks”; and “convert the plurality of second code blocks into fourth code by aligning the second code blocks with the third code, based on the third code”.
The limitation “extract from a plurality of the detected first code blocks, a plurality of second code blocks between which two-dimensional array data targeted by the first function code is the same, and aggregate computation code included in the first code is the same” and “generate third code using the first function code, the selected key columns, and the aggregate computation code, and adding the generated third code at a beginning of the second code blocks” and “convert the plurality of second code blocks into fourth code by aligning the second code blocks with the third code, based on the third code”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example “extract”, “generate” and “convert” in the context of this claim encompasses a user determining code between blocks are the same, and once link table is formulated, then making a judgment about third code blocks to attach to beginning of second code blocks and converting second code blocks into forth code blocks. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “select key columns to be used for a link table that is obtained by reducing the number of key columns of the target two-dimensional array data, based on the aggregate computation code included in the second code blocks and key columns of the target two-dimensional array data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. For example “reducing” in the context of this claim encompasses implementing a given aggregation formula on data table columns. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers implementing mathematical formulas, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using one or processors. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device). The other additional elements “detect from input code that was stored in a storage device in advance and has been input to be executed by a computer, first code that includes first function code for combining a plurality of key columns included in two-dimensional array data, and executing grouping computation for each combination of key columns” represent mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements represent mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations, “detect from input code that was stored in a storage device in advance and has been input to be executed by a computer, first code that includes first function code for combining a plurality of key columns included in two-dimensional array data, and executing grouping computation for each combination of key columns”, represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. The courts have routinely held that limitations performing data gathering steps represent insignificant limitations that do not provide to significantly more to the judicial exception. Claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims, as they recite the use of existing user recommendation technology as mere tools of data gathering. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 7 are similarly rejected as Claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-9 depend on claims 1, 4 and 7 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-9 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation “in a case where the aggregate computation code included in the second code blocks includes a function that computes a maximum value, a minimum value, a total sum, or the number of values, combines sets of the key columns of the second code blocks, and determines whether or not, in each combination, a set of key columns of a target second code block included in the combination includes a set of key columns of another second code block; and if it is determined that there is a combination in which a set of key columns of a target second code block includes a set of key columns of another second code block, selects a set of key columns of the second code blocks included in the combination”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the abstract idea with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claims 5 and 8 is similarly rejected as claim 2 above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely limit the abstract idea to a particular data source or particular type of data. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prasad et al., US 11,899,662.
Anand et al., US 2023/0325388. [0005].
Al-Azzawe et al., US 2004/0049736. [0019].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169