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 response to the communication filed on May 26, 2026. Claims 1-17, 36-53 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on May 26, 2026 have been considered but are moot in the of new ground of rejection. The argument regarding 101 is not persuasive.
Regarding 101, applicant argues the amended claims overcome the 101 rejction.
In response examiner respectfully disagrees and arguments are addressed in the new rejection.
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, 36-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites creating a plurality of records in the dataset catalog, wherein each record of the plurality of records is associated with a physical dataset and has associated therewith computer-executable instructions for accessing the physical dataset and at least two of the plurality of records are associated with a first logical dataset; receiving input identifying, at least in part, the first logical dataset for accessing to perform an operation within a data processing application specifying access to a dataset; upon execution of the operation within the data processing application: identifying a context associated with the operation within the data processing application; evaluating the context associated with the operation and context information stored in each of the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset; automatically selecting, based on the evaluation and from the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset, a record whose context information corresponds to the context associated with the operation; and invoking the computer-executable instructions for accessing a physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog in connection with execution of the operation within the data processing application.
The claim recited the limitation of “creating a plurality of records in the dataset catalog, wherein each record of the plurality of records is associated with a physical dataset and has associated therewith computer-executable instructions for accessing the physical dataset and at least two of the plurality of records are associated with a first logical dataset” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally create plurality of records with the help of physical aid (pen and paper). Hence, the limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Similarly, the limitations “identifying a context associated with the operation within the data processing application; evaluating the context associated with the operation and context information stored in each of the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset” also can be done mentally. User can mentally identify context information from the received data by mentally reading in mind and mentally evaluate the identified context which is a mental process. Further, the limitation “automatically selecting, based on the evaluation and from the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset, a record whose context information corresponds to the context associated with the operation” as drafted, also is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally select data select data as claimed which is mental process. Note that using the phrase “automatically” does not cure mental process because human mind can automatically select the action as recited in the claims.
The claim recites two additional elements: receiving input identifying, at least in part, the first logical dataset for accessing to perform an operation within a data processing application specifying access to a dataset and invoking the computer-executable instructions for accessing a physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog in connection with execution of the operation within the data processing application. The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, “invoking the computer-executable instructions for accessing a physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog” is also insignificant extra solution activity as it can be done with generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the 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 element of receiving and invoking steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as 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, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein each record of the plurality of records associated with a physical dataset comprises context information associated with the physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the context information comprises information identifying an environment in which the physical dataset is used, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the information identifying the environment indicates one of a development environment, a test environment or a production environment, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the context information comprises information identifying a type of a data processing application that accesses the physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the information identifying the type of the data processing application indicates one of a batch application or a continuous application, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the context information comprises one or more labels, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more labels is a text string, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the text string indicates a size of the physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the text string indicates origin information of the physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the context information comprises information identifying one or more users, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of for a record of the plurality of records associated with a physical dataset: receiving the context information through a user interface; and conditionally storing the received context information in the dataset catalog such that the context information is associated with the physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim12 and includes all the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of the physical dataset is associated in the dataset catalog with a logical dataset; and conditionally storing the received context information in a record of the plurality of records in the dataset catalog comprises: determining whether the dataset catalog contains a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information; storing the context information when it is determined that the dataset catalog does not contain a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information; and indicating an error when it is determined that the dataset catalog does contain a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein: the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset comprises a first record associated with a first physical dataset and a second record associated with a second physical dataset, the first record comprises first context information associated with the first physical dataset, and the second record comprises second context information associated with the second physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein selecting a record whose context information corresponds to the context associated with the operation comprises: upon execution of the operation at a first time,; selecting the first record when the context associated with the operation corresponds to the first context information associated with the first physical dataset; and upon execution of the operation at a second time different than the first time, selecting the second record when the context associated with the operation corresponds to the second context information associated with the second physical dataset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 and includes all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of identifying an ambiguity when both the first and the second records are identified for selection; and providing a user interface through which a user provides input to resolve the ambiguity, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein invoking the computer-executable instructions comprises: enabling access to the selected record in the dataset catalog; and enabling access, based on information within the selected record, to a data store storing the physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 36-53, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-17 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-17 above.
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) 1-17, 36-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisman (Pub. No. : US 20220245176 A1) in the view of Frost et al. (Pub. No. : US 20200301908 A1)
As to claim 1 Weisman teaches a method, performed by a data processing system, for generating and/or using entries in a dataset catalog to enable access to physical datasets in data stores, wherein the data processing system is configured to execute data processing applications programmed to access logical datasets, the method comprising:
creating a plurality of records in the dataset catalog, wherein each record of the plurality of records is associated with a physical dataset and has associated therewith computer-executable instructions for accessing the physical dataset and at least two of the plurality of records are associated with a first logical dataset (Paragraphs [0040], [0123]: creating dataset groups in a data processing system operable with a plurality of datasets is provided, wherein dataset multiplexer 105 may maintain a catalog of datasets 107, where each entry in the catalog corresponds to a logical dataset and provides information for accessing one or more physical datasets. The catalog entry may alternatively or additionally include information for converting data as stored in the physical dataset to a format of the logical dataset. That information may be or may include an executable program. For example, catalog information may identify a program for converting data in multiple fields in a physical dataset to the format of a corresponding logical entity in the logical dataset. Other information may alternatively or additionally be stored as or reflected in the catalog information for accessing the one or more physical datasets);
receiving input identifying, at least in part, the first logical dataset for accessing to perform an operation within a data processing application specifying access to a dataset (abstract, paragraphs [0123]-[0124], [0128]: receives user input specifying datasets on which operations are performed with user interfaces that enable manipulation of hierarchical groups of datasets);
upon execution of the operation within the data processing application (paragraph [0078]: data processing system configured to execute operations that access datasets): and
invoking the computer-executable instructions for accessing a physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog in connection with execution of the operation within the data processing application (paragraph [0123], [0109]: automating access to a corresponding physical dataset and conversion between the format for the logical and physical data sets. Dataset multiplexer 105 may maintain a catalog of datasets 107, where each entry in the catalog corresponds to a logical dataset and provides information for accessing one or more physical datasets).
Weisman does not explicitly disclose but Frost teaches identifying a context associated with the operation within the data processing application (paragraphs [0029], [0044]: As shown, content may be in the form of one or more logically grouped documents or files (162)-(166) for use as part of the data source (160) of data with the knowledge engine (150) wherein identification of document statements, the NLP manager (156) evaluates context within the document, which includes identification of context within the identified statements);
evaluating the context associated with the operation and context information stored in each of the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset (paragraphs [0029], [0044]: As shown, content may be in the form of one or more logically grouped documents or files (162)-(166) for use as part of the data source (160) of data with the knowledge engine (150) wherein identification of document statements, the NLP manager (156) evaluates context within the document, which includes identification of context within the identified statements);
automatically selecting, based on the evaluation and from the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset, a record whose context information corresponds to the context associated with the operation (paragraph [0044]: The assessment manager (152) is responsible for document source assignment, including identification of a source classification and evaluation of the source classification with respect to the document classification, and selective submission of the document to a source with a corresponding source classification and responsive to the source and document classification evaluation).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman by adding above limitation as taught by Frost improve the functionality and operation of an artificial intelligence platform to resolve interrogatories with intent identification and a corresponding response related to the identified intent (Frost, paragraph [0096]).
As to claim 2 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 1. Weisman teaches wherein each record of the plurality of records associated with a physical dataset comprises context information associated with the physical dataset (paragraph [0085]).
As to claim 3 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 2. Weisman teaches wherein the context information comprises information identifying an environment in which the physical dataset is used (paragraphs [0087], [0089]).
As to claim 4 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 3. Weisman teaches wherein the information identifying the environment indicates one of a development environment, a test environment or a production environment (paragraph [0089]).
As to claim 5 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 2. Weisman teaches wherein the context information comprises information identifying a type of a data processing application that accesses the physical dataset (paragraph [0115]).
As to claim 6 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 5. Weisman teaches wherein the information identifying the type of the data processing application indicates one of a batch application or a continuous application (paragraphs [0116]-[0117]).
As to claim 7 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 2. Weisman teaches wherein the context information comprises one or more labels (paragraph [0118]).
As to claim 8 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 7. Weisman teaches wherein the one or more labels is a text string (paragraph [0176]).
As to claim 9 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 8. Weisman teaches wherein the text string indicates a size of the physical dataset (paragraph [0129]).
As to claim 10 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 8. Weisman teaches wherein the text string indicates origin information of the physical dataset (paragraph [0095]).
As to claim 11 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 2. Weisman teaches wherein the context information comprises information identifying one or more users (paragraph [0050]).
As to claim 12 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 2. Weisman teaches for a record of the plurality of records associated with a physical dataset: receiving the context information through a user interface and conditionally storing the received context information in the dataset catalog such that the context information is associated with the physical dataset (paragraphs [0017], [0119]).
As to claim 13 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 12. Weisman teaches the physical dataset is associated in the dataset catalog with a logical dataset and conditionally storing the received context information in a record of the plurality of records in the dataset catalog comprises: determining whether the dataset catalog contains a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information, storing the context information when it is determined that the dataset catalog does not contain a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information, and indicating an error when it is determined that the dataset catalog does contain a record associated with the logical dataset having the same context information (paragraph [0123]-[0125]).
As to claim 14 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 1. Weisman teaches wherein: the at least two of the plurality of records associated with the first logical dataset comprises a first record associated with a first physical dataset and a second record associated with a second physical dataset, the first record comprises first context information associated with the first physical dataset, and the second record comprises second context information associated with the second physical dataset (paragraph [0145]).
As to claim 15 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 14. Weisman teaches wherein selecting a record whose context information corresponds to the context associated with the operation comprises: upon execution of the operation at a first time,; selecting the first record when the context associated with the operation corresponds to the first context information associated with the first physical dataset; and upon execution of the operation at a second time different than the first time, selecting the second record when the context associated with the operation corresponds to the second context information associated with the second physical dataset, (paragraph [0092], [0117]).
As to claim 16 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 15. Weisman teaches identifying an ambiguity when both the first and the second records are identified for selection and providing a user interface through which a user provides input to resolve the ambiguity (paragraph [0122], [0124]).
As to claim 17 Weisman together Frost teaches a method according to claim 1. Weisman teaches wherein invoking the computer-executable instructions comprises: enabling access to the selected record in the dataset catalog, and enabling access, based on information within the selected record, to a data store storing the physical dataset associated with the selected record in the dataset catalog (paragraph [0124]-[0126]).
As to claims 36-53, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-17 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-17 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights