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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are allowed over the prior art. Note that there are remaining 35 USC 101 rejections that need to be overcome before the application can proceed to allowance.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: ingesting, by a computer system, a data instance organized in accordance with multiple data structures, wherein the multiple data structures include multiple data fields, and wherein the data instance includes multiple data values stored within the multiple data fields; irreversibly hashing the multiple data values stored within the multiple data fields; identifying a subset of the multiple data structures by: determining a data structure name similarity of the subset of the multiple data structures; determining a data field name similarity of the subset of the multiple data structures based on the multiple data fields; determining a data field similarity of the subset of the multiple data structures based on the irreversibly hashed multiple data values; and determining that a weighted average of the data structure name similarity, the data field name similarity, and the data field similarity is greater than a threshold data similarity; and sending, to a computer device, information describing the subset of the multiple data structures”.
The limitations of “A computer-implemented method comprising: fields; determining a data field similarity of the subset of the multiple data structures based on the irreversibly hashed multiple data values; and determining that a weighted average of the data structure name similarity, the data field name similarity, and the data field similarity is greater than a threshold data similarity; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer system” and “a computer device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer system” and “computer device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer system” and “a computer device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “ingesting, by multiple data values stored within the multiple data fields” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending, to ‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 of using “a computer system” and “a computer device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “ingesting, by that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending, to ‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein irreversibly hashing the multiple data values is performed using a MinHash algorithm”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein irreversibly hashing the multiple data values is performed using a Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) index”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein irreversibly hashing the multiple data values is performed using HashingTF to produce a discrete probability distribution”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein irreversibly hashing the multiple data values is performed using KLL Sketch”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple data structures is a table”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple data fields is a column”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to: ingest, from at least one computer device, multiple data values; irreversibly hash the multiple data values to generate hashed data, wherein the hashed data is organized in accordance with multiple data structures, and wherein the multiple data structures include multiple data fields storing the hashed data; receive, from a computer device, a query identifying a first data structure of the multiple data structures; in response to receiving the query, identify at least one second data structure of the multiple data structures by performing steps to: determine a data structure name similarity between the first data structure and the at least one second data structure; determine a data field name similarity between the first data structure and the at least one second data structure based on the multiple data fields; and determine a data field similarity between the first data structure and the at least one second data structure based on the irreversibly hashed multiple data values, wherein a weighted average of the data structure name similarity, the data field name similarity, and the data field similarity is greater than a threshold data similarity; and display, on a graphical user interface of the computer system, information describing the at least one second data structure”.
The limitations of “and the at least one second data structure based on the multiple data fields; and determine a data field similarity between the first data structure and the at least one second data structure based on the irreversibly hashed multiple data values, wherein a weighted average of the data structure name similarity, the data field name similarity, and the data field similarity is greater than a threshold data similarity; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one data processor”, “a computer system”, “at least one computer device”, “a computer device” and “a graphical user interface of the computer system” to perform the claimed steps. The “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one data processor”, “a computer system”, “at least one computer device”, “a computer device” and “a graphical user interface of the computer system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one data processor”, “a computer system”, “at least one computer device”, “a computer device” and “a graphical user interface of the computer system” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, from
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 of using “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one data processor”, “a computer system”, “at least one computer device”, “a computer device” and “a graphical user interface of the computer system” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, from
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “application. The claim also discloses the additional element of “store the hashed data within a vector store for identifying the at least one second data structure”, and the courts have recognized that storing information is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “store the hashed data within a vector store for identifying the at least one second data structure”, and the courts have recognized that storing information is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “computer system to: profile the multiple data values prior to irreversibly hashing the multiple data values”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computer system, an instance of a database including at least a first table and a second table, wherein the first table includes multiple first rows and multiple first columns, and wherein the second table includes multiple second rows and multiple second columns; irreversibly hashing first data stored in one or more of the first rows and one or more of the first columns to generate first hashed data; irreversibly hashing second data stored in one or more of the second rows and one or more of the second columns to generate second hashed data; statistically comparing the one or more of the first columns with the one or more of the second columns to determine a similarity between the first table and the second table; and displaying, on a graphical user interface, an indication of the similarity between the first table and the second table”.
The limitations of “A computer-implemented method comprising:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer system” and “a graphical user interface” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer system” and “graphical user interface” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer system” and “a graphical user interface” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by
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 of using “a computer system” and “a graphical user interface” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by first table and the second table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, comprising: determining that the similarity between the first table and the second table is greater than a threshold similarity; and tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “displaying, on
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more of the first rows and the one or more of the second rows each include less than a threshold number of rows”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more of the first columns and the one or more of the second columns each include less than a threshold number of columns”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, comprising generating statistical properties of the first hashed data and the second hashed data for the statistically comparing”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the statistically comparing is performed Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional element of “using an artificial intelligence (AI) system” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the instance of the database is stored on a datacenter, wherein the datacenter stores an amount of data, wherein an amount of greenhouses gases emitted by a power plant to supply an amount of electricity to power the datacenter reduces as the amount of data stored reduces, and wherein the computer-implemented method comprises: determining that the similarity between the first table and the second table is greater than a threshold similarity; deleting the second table from the instance of the database to reduce the amount of data stored, wherein reducing the amount of data stored is associated with a reduced amount of electricity to power the datacenter; and responsive to deleting the second table from the instance of the database, reducing the amount of greenhouses gases emitted by the power plant to supply the reduced amount of electricity to power the datacenter”. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Misra et al. (‘Misra’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20190155572) teaches a similarity analysis platform that uses a tuple-based similarity analysis technique, a data structure-driven similarity analysis technique, an approximation-based similarity analysis technique, and a reduction-based similarity analysis technique on a particular test case field group; the platform can determine a field-level similarity score for the test case field group by taking an average, or a weighted average, of the similarity scores generated by each similarity analysis technique (see Mirsa, paragraph [0085]). Misra also teaches that the platform may determine that the first word or phrase and the second word or phrase are similar if the first word or phrase and the second word or phrase satisfy the threshold level of similarity (see Misra, paragraph [0082]).
Bui et al. (‘Bui’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210200745) teaches verifying schemas of datasets to see if they are backwards compatible with previous schemas by comparing the number of data fields, the format of the data fields, the metadata record hash codes, or any of various other properties represented in the schema encode values to corresponding properties in the schema encodes for a particular dataset (see Bui, paragraph [0042]).
Stojanović (Stojanović, Uglješa, "Identifying and extracting structured data from web pages", eRAF Journal on Computing, Volume 7, 2015) teaches a method for automatically identifying and extracting information that matches a predetermined criterion from one or more web pages at one or more web sites and automatically producing one or more extracted data-field names from the information extracted from the one or more web pages at the one or more web sites, where the extracted information includes at least one extracted data-field value associated with one of the one or more extracted data-field names; if one of the extracted data-field names matches an existing data-field name in a previously constructed database including one or more data fields each associated with a data-field name and a data-field value, the method updates an extracted data-field value associated with the data-field name in the database; if one of the extracted data field names does not match any of the existing data-field names in the database, the method adds the extracted data-field name to the database (see Stojanović, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151