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 communication is responsive to Amendment, filed 12/04/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. This action is made Final.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, 9 recite a process/medium/device of data generation comprising: displaying a data generation page of a data table; in response to a configuration operation for a configuration item of the data table in the data generation page, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item; in response to a trigger operation for a generation control in the data generation page, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition, wherein the constraint condition comprises the configuration information and user information corresponding to a user who performs the configuration operation; and displaying the metadata in a display region for displaying the metadata in the data generation page”.
These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "a non-transitory computer readable medium, a storage apparatus", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the “a non-transitory computer readable medium, a storage apparatus” language, “displaying a data generation page of a data table; in response to a configuration operation …, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item; in response to a trigger operation …, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition …; and displaying the metadata …” in the context of this claim encompasses a user identifying, evaluating and drawing a data table mentally, with the aid of pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional element – using “a non-transitory computer readable medium, a storage apparatus” to “displaying a data generation page of a data table; in response to a configuration operation …, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item; in response to a trigger operation …, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition …; and displaying the metadata…”, these limitations amount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
“displaying a data generation page of a data table; …displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item…; and displaying the metadata…”; these limitations are a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The non-transitory computer readable medium, the storage apparatus are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “displaying a data generation page of a data table; in response to a configuration operation …, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item; in response to a trigger operation …, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition …;…, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition …; and displaying the metadata…”. 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
The limitations “a non-transitory computer readable medium, a storage apparatus” language, “displaying a data generation page of a data table; in response to a configuration operation …, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item; in response to a trigger operation …, generating metadata of the data table based on a constraint condition …; and displaying the metadata…” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-15 merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claims 1, 9 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 10-15 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US Patent No 6,253,218 B1), as applied to claims above, in view of Newman et al. (US Patent No. 6,046,689).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caligaris et al. (US Pat No. 11,443,390), in view of MANN et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0184989).
As to claims 1, 8, 9, Caligaris teaches a data generation method, comprising:
displaying a data generation page of a data table (i.e. FIG. 4 illustrates a
view of holdings from the perspective of an individual named Uncle Moneypenny as indicated by Perspective label 402, col. 19, lines 10-18; FIG. 4 comprises a table view 408 which, for purposes of illustrating an example, comprises rows organized by asset class as indicated by an Asset Class bucketing label 410 and columns showing asset class name and current value as indicated by column label 412, col. 19, lines 19-27);
in response to a configuration operation for a configuration item of the data table in the data generation page, displaying configuration information corresponding to the configuration item (i.e. Selecting an Add link in the Filters region causes view computation unit 206 to display a GUI widget that may receive definitions of filters, col. 19, lines 10-18; Selecting an Edit Groupings widget 414 causes view computation unit 206 to display a GUI dialog that may receive reconfiguration of data values, col. 19, lines 28-32; selecting an Edit Columns widget 416 causes view computation unit 206 to display a GUI widget that may receive reconfiguration of data values that determine the identity and order of columns of the table view 408, col. 20, lines 14-33; a selected asset are displayed and editable by the user in a sidebar 1802, col. 36, lines 5-27);
in response to a trigger operation for a generation control in the data generation page, generating metadata of the data table by processing a constraint condition with a pre-trained prediction model (i.e. an Add TWR Factor dialog 930 resulting from selecting the Edit Column dialog ... the view computation unit 206 causes displaying an Add TWR Factor comprising a Period drop-down menu 932 having a list 934 presenting a plurality of time period options, col. 26, line 66 to col. 27, line 22; Filters may be created through manual user selection and action by selecting the Filters Add (+) icon and responding to a filter creation dialog, or semi-automatically by selecting elements of info-graphics, col. 27, line 55 to col. 28, line 9), wherein the constraint condition comprises the configuration information and user information corresponding to a user who performs the configuration operation (i.e. The example time varying manager attribute applied to Security A,, col. 36, line 44 to col. 37, line 4; By allowing a user to define sets of model attributes to associate with sets of data, the system is able to recognize the model attributes and the associated data, col. 68, lines 47-57; Model attributes may be understood as indicating attributes associated with specific individual rows within a generated table of the user interface, col. 68, lines 12-30), wherein the user information comprises a user identification and business line information (i.e. an “Asset Type” bucketing factor ... the generated table will include rows corresponding to assets associated with Bob, col. 32, lines 1-18); and
displaying the metadata in a display region for displaying the metadata in the data generation page (i.e. A user may scroll through list 1104 and select any Factor of interest ... selecting a new Factor from a pop-up menu, col. 28, lines 23-42; the configuration values of dialog 930 are applied to a view, col. 26, line 66 to col. 27, line 22; a view of the report based on the metadata, col. 30, lines 22-57; As shown, a dropdown menu 1832 may be displayed listing a scrollable list of various common attributes that may be added to the selected security, col. 36, lines 28-43; updates the user interface including the displayed table, col. 38, lines 32-46).
Caligaris does not seem to specifically teach "a pre-trained prediction model".
MANN teaches this limitation (i.e. machine learning algorithms ... a predictive model, [0305]; automatically through machine learning to determine the data type contained in the cells of a column to predict a suitable column heading,, [1168]; choices for auto-filling lists (e.g., choices that automatically populate for column headings when creating a new column in a table), and any other customizable information associated with the primary application, [0642]; The application modules may be predicted and recommended, [0858]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Caligaris, MANN before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Caligaris to include the limitations as taught by MANN. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to automatically determine the data type contained in the cells of a column through machine learning to predict a suitable column heading in view of MANN ([1168]), as doing so would give the added benefit of providing choices for auto-filling lists that automatically populate for column headings when creating a new column in a table, as taught by MANN ((0642]).
As to claims 2, 10, MANN teaches the displaying the metadata in a display region for displaying the metadata in the data generation page comprises:
displaying a first assembly in the data generation page, wherein the first assembly comprises a confirmation filling control (i.e. Disclosed embodiments may include presenting a pick list of the logical rules typically associated with the type of the new column, [0912]; display a table having at least one customizable row heading or column heading, [0012]); automatically through machine learning to determine the data type contained in the cells of a column to predict a suitable column heading, [1168]); and
in response to a trigger operation for the confirmation filling control, displaying the metadata in the display region for displaying the metadata in the data generation page (i.e. choices for auto-filling lists (e.g., choices that automatically populate for column headings when creating a new column in a table), and any other customizable information associated with the primary application, [0642]).
As to claims 3, 11, MANN teaches the first assembly further comprises a re-generation control, and the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation for the re-generation control, regenerating metadata of the data table based on the constraint condition (i.e. enabling a user to select various prompts to ... trigger the generation of new or modified table entries, [0526]).
As to claims 4, 12, MANN teaches the method further comprises:
in response to the trigger operation for the re-generation control, constructing first sample data based on the metadata to the data table generated based on the constraint condition and the constraint condition, wherein the first sample data is used to update a pre-trained prediction model, and the prediction model is used to generate the metadata of the data table based on the constraint condition (i.e. trigger the generation of new or modified table entries characterizing workflow-related communications between workflow participants, [0526]; the customized workflow management account may continue to learn from the user's touch points and activities to continuously provide relevant tools, solutions, and visualizations to adapt to the user's activities and
updates, [1118]).
As to claims 5, 13, MANN teaches the method further comprises:
in response to an edit operation for the metadata, obtaining modified metadata (i.e. to edit information on the first board, the second board, or any other board, directly, [1517]; The fifth heading may include ... feature or characteristic that may be associated with the information associated with one or more boards, [1518]); and
constructing second sample data based on the modified metadata and the constraint condition, wherein the second sample data is used to update a pre-trained prediction model, and the prediction model is used to generate the metadata of the data table based on the constraint condition (i.e. a neural network processor may be trained to identify and/or predict user preferences based on learning through linguistic processing and the user's historical preferences, [0617; the customized workflow management account may continue to learn from the user's touch points and activities to continuously provide relevant tools, solutions, and visualizations to adapt to the user's activities and updates, [1118]).
As to claims 6, 14, MANN teaches the metadata of the data table is generated based on the constraint condition by using a pre-trained prediction model, and the prediction model is trained by:
obtaining a sample set, wherein the sample set comprises historical metadata, historical configuration information, and historical user information that are entered by different users when the data table is historically constructed (i.e. analyze the data associated with the entity's historical use of due date column 10812 to determine that the entity frequently uses due date column 10812 with start date column 10810, [0840]; a neural network processor may be trained to identify and/or predict user preferences based on learning through linguistic processing and the user's historical preferences, [0617]); and
obtaining a prediction model for generating metadata based on the sample set (i.e. An automation may include any number of conditions ... a neural network processor may be trained to identify and/or predict user preferences based on learning through linguistic processing and the user's historical preferences, [0617]).
As to claims 7, 15, MANN teaches:
displaying progress prompt information in the data generation page, wherein the progress prompt information is used to indicate a generation progress of the metadata (i.e. the user interface may be a menu (e.g., a context menu) that may be prompted in response to a user input, [0619]; an interface enabling a user to select various prompts, [0088]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the 103 rejections, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With regards to the 101 rejections, Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that "Displaying configuration information" serves as a real-time feedback mechanism to ensure the accuracy of model input. This step provides the user with immediate feedback, confirming that the entered configuration information is correct. It is a crucial prerequisite to ensure that the subsequent "prediction model" can generate high-quality metadata based on accurate data, relates to data integrity, and is an integral part of the technical process. "Displaying the metadata" represents the output and integration point of the entire technical solution. It is the step that directly and efficiently integrates the technical output of the "prediction model" into the data creation workflow. This avoids the need for users to manually switch between applications or copy/paste data, thereby significantly reducing the number of computer processing steps and user interactions required to complete the data table creation task. For instance, please see paragraph [0058] of the specification: "implement automatic filling of the metadata in the data table, without the need for the user to add the metadata manually." This fully clarifies that the ultimate purpose of "displaying" is "automatic filling"-a technical effect that improves the efficiency of computer usage”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the above limitations are not clearly recited in claims.
Claims 1, 15, 18 are amended to include “generating metadata of the data table by processing based on a constraint condition with a pre-trained prediction model, wherein the constraint condition comprises the configuration information and user information corresponding to a user who performs the configuration operation, wherein the user information comprises a user identification and business line information”, these limitations merely indicate how data are being organized and collected by a pre-trained prediction model and is not an improvement and does not negate the identified mental processes i.e., displaying a data generation page…, generating metadata of the table, and displaying metadata… In fact, the claim language appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application because additional elements such as a pretrained prediction model (in claims 1, 8, 9) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations such as (displaying a data generation page…, generating metadata of the table, and displaying metadata…the user information comprises a user identification and business line information) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp);
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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as the pre-trained prediction model (in claims 1, 8, 9) and a storage apparatus, a processing apparatus (in claim 9) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations such as (displaying a data generation page…, generating metadata of the table, and displaying metadata…the user information comprises a user identification and business line information) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp);
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
As detailed, claims 1-15 cannot overcome the 101 rejections.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRANDA LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached on 571-272-8352. 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.
/MIRANDA LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153