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
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “transforming the data format of at least a portion of each one plurality of datasets into another data format based on the at least one of the plurality of data identifiers and or a respective one of the plurality of first application programming interfaces.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. Specifically, the act of changing data from one format to another is a cognitive task involving mapping and conversion that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, a human could take a list of names in "Last, First" format and, using a list of identifiers, rewrite them into "First Last" format.
Limitation “returning, via each of the second application programming interfaces, analyzed or summarized data based on the at least one data identifier contained in the request and or a respective one of the plurality of second application programming interfaces.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. Specifically, the acts of "analyzing" and "summarizing" information are fundamental cognitive functions. For example, a human could look at a set of financial transactions (the request) and, using a reference key, write down a total sum (the analyzed or summarized data) on a piece of paper.
Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
receiving metadata for a data warehouse, the metadata comprising a plurality of data identifiers, each data identifier associated with a unique data item
receiving, from a plurality of incompatible data sources respectively via a plurality of first application programming interfaces, a plurality of datasets that each comprise at least one of the plurality of data identifiers, wherein each of the plurality of datasets has a data format different than data formats of all other ones of the plurality of datasets
storing, in a plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the plurality of datasets after said transforming
receiving, through each of a plurality of second application programming interfaces, a request for data, the request comprising at least one data identifier of the plurality of data identifiers
application programming interfaces
The limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field:
The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. The recitation of performing data transformation and storage within a data warehouse is a conventional computer-implemented implementation of the mental processes of conversion and summarization. The specification does not provide a technical explanation of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement over existing data management techniques; it merely describes the automated execution of the claimed steps.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The claim does not recite a particular machine. The elements computing system, data warehouse, application programming interfaces, and interconnected tables are generic computer components. These components are used here to perform the mental processes of data conversion and summarization in a standard, conventional manner.
MPEP 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
The claim does not recite a particular transformation of an article to a different state or appearance. The transformation recited is a transformation of data format, which is a transformation of digital information (data) and not a physical transformation of a matter or article.
MPEP 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The claim does not recite any other meaningful limitations. The use of application programming interfaces and interconnected tables are standard tools for data exchange and storage and do not impose a meaningful limit on the mental process of analyzing or summarizing information.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
The additional elements, such as receiving data via an API or storing it in a table, are considered extra-solution activity. These steps are merely the conventional ways of implementing the mental process of data manipulation within a computer environment and do not provide a solution to a technical problem.
MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
The claim does not recite a specific field of use or a particular technological environment that would distinguish it from the general mental process of data analysis. The claim is directed to the general task of data management rather than a specific technological application.
Step 2B, The claim does not provide an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the recited judicial exceptions. When the additional elements are examined individually and as an ordered combination—receiving data, transforming it, storing it, and returning a summary—it is clear that they amount to a routine, conventional, and well-understood computer-implemented method for performing the mental processes of data conversion and analysis. The combination of these steps does not transform the abstract idea of data summarization into a patent-eligible application; rather, it merely describes the automation of a cognitive task using standard computer functions. Under the Berkheimer standard, there is no specific, non-generic technical solution to a technical problem presented; the claim simply utilizes generic hardware (processor and memory) to execute the abstract concept of data management. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 recites “receiving metadata for the data warehouse comprises receiving unique numeric identifiers”. Under BRI, the use of numeric identifiers is a well-understood, routine, and conventional method for identifying data in a computer system. This limitation does not provide an inventive concept or change the character of the claim from a mental process of data organization to a patent-eligible technical solution.
Claim 3 recites “receiving the request for data comprises receiving credentials that authorize returning the analyzed or summarized data” adds a layer of security to the data request. However, the use of credentials to authorize access is a standard and conventional practice in the art of computer communications. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “receiving the credentials comprise receiving credentials generated by a role-based authentication system”. While role-based authentication is a standard security architecture, it is considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice in the field of information technology. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “the transforming the data format is based on terms of a contract”. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “returning analyzed or summarized data comprises generating a graphical summary of the requested data”. Generating a visualization or graph to represent data is a conventional computer-implemented task used to fulfill the mental process of summarization. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “detecting a pattern in first data received from at least one of the plurality of incompatible data sources; selecting a portion of the first data based on the detected pattern; and extracting the portion of the first data that was selected” The sequence steps do not create a unique, non-abstract workflow that provides an inventive concept beyond the automated execution of data manipulation.
Claim 8 recites “automatedly reconfiguring operations of a vending machine or media device based on the analyzed or summarized data”. The reconfiguration is merely a functional response to the results of the mental process (analyzing/ summarizing). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim 9 recites “autonomously remotely controlling operations of a vending machine or media device based on the analyzed or summarized data”. Remote control is a conventional method of interacting with electronic devices. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “receiving, from the vending machine or media device via a respective interface of the plurality of first application programming interfaces, another dataset that comprises one or more data identifiers of the plurality of data identifiers; transforming a data format of another dataset into the another data format based on the one or more data identifiers and or the respective interface of the plurality of first application programming interfaces; and storing, in the plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the another dataset in the another data format”. This is an ordered combination of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (receive, transform, store) performed on a generic data set. This addition does not provide an inventive concept or a non-obvious technical solution that would rescue the claim from ineligibility.
Claim 11 recites “autonomously remotely controlling another vending machine or media device based on the stored another dataset” combines the conventional steps of data storage and remote device control. It does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claims 12-22 are similar to claims 1-11. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters (U.S. Patent 9483537 B1)
Claim 1
Peter discloses a method comprising, by a computing system:
receiving metadata for a data warehouse, the metadata comprising a plurality of data identifiers, each data identifier associated with a unique data item (claim 1, “… derive metadata from the received source data set, wherein deriving the metadata from the source data set includes: determining, for a table in the source data set, a grain of the table; determining, for a column in the source data set, a target dimension and level; determining whether the column is a measure…” col 4, line 4-8, “… Key columns are mapped by the user to their corresponding levels in the dimensional hierarchies. For example, a user may map the key column “Region_ID” in a “Business” dimension to a “Region” level in an associated “Business” hierarchy…”);
receiving, from a plurality of incompatible data sources respectively via a plurality of first application programming interfaces, a plurality of datasets that each comprise at least one of the plurality of data identifiers, wherein each of the plurality of datasets has a data format different than data formats of all other ones of the plurality of datasets (col 3, line 64-67, “… loads data from source data 104 into database 116 using data loading procedures in repository 112, by calling one or more APIs…” col 3, line 28-36, “… different types of source data files 102 include flat files, Excel spreadsheets, tables in a relational database, structured data files such as XML data, and data obtained via a service call to another program…” col 4, line 4-8, “… Key columns are mapped by the user to their corresponding levels in the dimensional hierarchies. For example, a user may map the key column “Region_ID” in a “Business” dimension to a “Region” level in an associated “Business” hierarchy…”);
transforming the data format of at least a portion of each one plurality of datasets into another data format based on the at least one of the plurality of data identifiers and or a respective one of the plurality of first application programming interfaces (col 17-20, “… Natural keys—which may be composed of multiple columns—are transformed into simple integer surrogate keys for performance…” col 5, line 52-55, “… column transformations for columns in a staging table. These transformations allow data in a staging table to be altered/modified before it is moved to its ultimate destination, the dimension and measure tables…”);
storing, in a plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the plurality of datasets after said transforming (col 2, line 64-66, “…. In the star schema design, a single object (the fact table) sits in the middle and is connected to other surrounding objects (dimension tables) “ claim 1, “… automatically generate a corresponding database schema, wherein generating the corresponding database schema includes:
generating a dimension table, wherein the dimension table is generated based at least in part on one or more columns in the source data set determined to be targeted to a level associated with the dimension table; and
generating a measure table, wherein the measure table is generated for the determined grain…”)
receiving, through each of a plurality of second application programming interfaces, a request for data, the request comprising at least one data identifier of the plurality of data identifiers (col 8, line 1-5, “… Alice can indicate to system 106 that she would like to see “Year/Month” data in addition to “Category Name” and “Quantity.”…” col 9, line 59-65, “… dashboard engine 118 is configured to evaluate the source data provided by Alice for metrics of interest, to locate metric-attribute combinations (such as number of products sold per region), and to populate a dashboard with reports associated with the metric-attribute combinations that are likely to be of interest to Alice….” <examiner note: dashboard engine = second APIs) ; and
returning, via each of the second application programming interfaces, analyzed or summarized data based on the at least one data identifier contained in the request and or a respective one of the plurality of second application programming interfaces (col 10, line 46-55, “… The metric-attribute combinations are ranked, e.g., based on information gain, and the highest ranked combinations are used to generate reports showing such information as quantity sold per region. In various embodiments, multiple reports are presented on the same screen, referred to herein as a dashboard. Alice can share access to the dashboard with others users, and can also interact with the dashboard, e.g, by adding and removing additional attributes and/or metrics from inclusion in the reporting. For example, suppose one report selected for display to Alice is products by region. In various embodiments, Alice is provided with an interface that allows her to refine the report so that it shows products by region by time…” col 9, line 59-65, “… dashboard engine 118 is configured to evaluate the source data provided by Alice for metrics of interest…”)
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, Peters further discloses wherein receiving metadata for the data warehouse comprises receiving unique numeric identifiers (claim 1, “… derive metadata from the received source data set, wherein deriving the metadata from the source data set includes: determining, for a table in the source data set, a grain of the table; determining, for a column in the source data set, a target dimension and level; determining whether the column is a measure…” col 4, line 4-8, “… Key columns are mapped by the user to their corresponding levels in the dimensional hierarchies. For example, a user may map the key column “Region_ID” in a “Business” dimension to a “Region” level in an associated “Business” hierarchy…”)
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, Peters discloses wherein the transforming the data format is based on terms of a contract (col 17-20, “… Natural keys—which may be composed of multiple columns—are transformed into simple integer surrogate keys for performance…” col 5, line 52-55, “… column transformations for columns in a staging table. These transformations allow data in a staging table to be altered/modified before it is moved to its ultimate destination, the dimension and measure tables…”);
Claim 6
Claim 1 is included, Peters discloses wherein returning analyzed or summarized data comprises generating a graphical summary of the requested data (fig. 14 a-c)
Claims12-13, and 16-17 are similar to claims 1,2,5, and 6. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (U.S. Patent 9483537 B1), as applied to claim 1 and 12 respectively, and further in view of Basu (U.S. Pub 2024/0004891 A1)
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, however, Peters does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the request for data comprises receiving credentials that authorize returning the analyzed or summarized data.
Basu discloses wherein receiving the request for data comprises receiving credentials that authorize returning the analyzed or summarized data ([0032], “… the user interface generation and rendering unit 212, upon receiving the search request, is configured to firstly, authenticate the user by carrying out a Single-Sign-On (SSO) authentication… The search is carried out for at least, but not limited to, data and asset determination, data insights generation and data insights recommendations.…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a single-sign-on authentication as disclosed by Basu into Peters because the SSO maintaining privacy and security of generated data insights and monitor usage and access of the data in a controlled single environment.
Claim 4
Claim 3 is included, Basu discloses wherein receiving the credentials comprise receiving credentials generated by a role-based authentication system ([0032], “… The Azure® active directory (not shown) comprises user data (user roles, access definition, data security, login details, etc.) of multiple users, which are used for authenticating the users…”)
Claims 14-15 are similar to claims 3-4. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
U.S. Pub 2022/0318236 – Smith discloses a computer-implemented system and method for dynamically generating library reports is provided. An application server may acquire and receive a plurality of raw item datasets each associated with a library item from multiple sources; and map each of the plurality of raw item datasets to a set of parameters to generate a mapped item dataset for each library item by identifying a unique identifier for each raw item dataset associated with each library item. and process a plurality of mapped item datasets to output processed item datasets that corresponds to one or more metrics. The application server may dynamically generate one or more library reports by applying a machine learning algorithm on the processed item datasets. The machine learning algorithm is executed to determine a priority of generating each library report based at least on a user request.
U.S. Pub 2023/0325399 - Raghuvanshi discloses s dedicated database system for a school, college or university is proposed which is capable of providing whole analytical insights to all aspects of academic business and organization. This enables users to obtain and analyze business data from a plurality of sources, manipulate and store and then after reformatting, to apply machine learning and other algorithms to obtain analytical information for past and present state and future predictions. The database system is also capable of listing and itemizing key parameters and data which shall have major improvements in the metrics of interest for the education institutions. The database system is capable of cloud installation, enabling online updates of versions and improvements in performance, in a transparent way to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights