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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is issued in response to Application filed September 30, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-14 are method claims and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claims 15-20 are system claims and directed to the machine category of patentable subject matter.
Although claims 1-20 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are drawn to storing a plurality of array field values for an array field of a plurality of rows; generating index data for the array field based on: indexing non-null element values of the plurality of array fields for the plurality of rows; indexing null-valued ones of the plurality of array fields for the plurality of rows; indexing ones of the plurality of array fields for the plurality of rows having an empty set of elements; and indexing ones of the plurality of fields for the plurality of rows having at least one null element value: determining a query including a query predicate indicating an array operation for the array field; applying an IO pipeline in conjunction with execution of the query by: applying a first index element to identify a first proper subset of the plurality of rows having array field values that include a given non-null value denoted in the query predicate as one of the set of elements based on the index data for the array field; applying at least one second index element to identify a second proper subset of the plurality of rows satisfying a subset of a set of missing data-based conditions based on the index data for the array field; and generating a query resultant for the query based on the first proper subset and the second proper subset.
The claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; since the claims are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. The limitations of generating index data for an array; determining a query; and generating a query resultant; fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all”. Specifically, the limitations as discussed above, as claimed, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., processor, system, memory, etc.) because a user can mentally, or with pen and paper, generate index data; determine a query; and generate a result for the query. See Digitech (organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations), Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim includes additional elements; such as indexing different elements and values; and applying a first and second index element to identify a first and second subset of rows; which all fall within the mental processing of information. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements (i.e., processor, system, memory, etc.) that are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic computer or as a generic processor performing a generic computer function), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(d) (II). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are merely drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or insignificant extra-solution is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims, 2-14 and 16-20, depend on a rejected parent claim and do not cure its deficiencies. Similar to the above discussion, each of the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims are drawn to subject matter that covers performance of the claimed limitations in the mind, or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components as discussed above. The claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims only recite additional elements that is/are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic computer or as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or are merely drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim elements considered individually or in combination do not result in a new or improved method for indexing an array field.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELCIE L DAYE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3891. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00pm. 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Chelcie Daye
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
June 10, 2025
/CHELCIE L DAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161