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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 01/14/2025 and the result interview on 11/21/2025.
Claims 1 was cancelled. Claims 2 – 21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/24/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,510 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 2 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2 – 21 are directed to “method, a non-transitory computer medium, a system”, and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claim 1, 12, 21 includes the following limitations that directed to an abstract idea:
“determining automatically, for each data table, one or more maintenance operations to automatically execute on a data table of the plurality of data tables based on the received metrics for the data table”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. A user can mentally judge/evaluation the received metrics and thinking one or more maintenance operations to be performed on a table based on the received data [Para. 0049 of the Disclosure].
“determining automatically, for each of the plurality of data tables, a cost-benefit metric for each of the one or more maintenance operations to automatically execute on the data table, wherein the cost-benefit metric is based on a cost and a benefit of running the maintenance operation on the data table” as drafted, is a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. A user can mentally judge/evaluation the cost and benefits of each maintenance operations after observed/evaluation the received data such as passed operations, table statuses…, according to Para. 0047 of the Disclosure.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Additional limitations include:
“receiving metrics for each data table of a plurality of data tables”, “scheduling an execution order to automatically execute the one or more maintenance operations for each of the plurality of data tables based on the determined cost- benefit metrics”, “to automatically execute”, which are insignificant extra solution activities as receiving of data (data gathering), and using a computer component to schedule a process/task to automatically execute on a table based on the received data. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
“a non-transitory computer readable medium… processors”, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The additional limitations, individually or in combination, do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, the “receiving metrics for each data table of a plurality of data tables” is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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);
“scheduling …”, “to automatically execute” are also identified as insignificant extra-solution activity when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the Disclosure (Para. 0048, using a computer component to execute computing tasks).
“a non-transitory computer readable medium… processors”, are considered insignificant extra- solution activity, and do not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP - 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 3 – 4 13 - 14 includes “determining automatically…”, as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality, can be performed by human mind, which is a form of metal activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claims 5 – 6, 15- 16 includes “periodically redetermining automatically…”, “identifying a set of files …; and compacting the set of files by combining contents of a subset of the set of files”, as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims because one can mentally identify, re-evaluation identifying a set of files that are below a threshold size.
The dependent claims 7 – 8, 17- 18, includes “determining …; identifying a set of files …”, “collecting information” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims.
The dependent claims 9 – 10, 19 includes “identifying a set of files … and removing the set of files”, “monitoring a corresponding data table”. These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims because one can mentally identify, re-evaluation identifying a set of files that are below a threshold size and remove it accordingly.
The dependent claims 11, 20 include “wherein the metrics describe at least one of a size of a corresponding data table, a number of files in the corresponding data table, a number of rows in the corresponding data table, a size of each file in the corresponding data table, and metadata describing the corresponding data table” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity because one can mentally identify different types of data in the metric.
In claim 12 - 21, Applicant claims the abstract idea on a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions and processor to carry-out the method as in claim 1, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to “receiving metrics… determining operation… determining cost benefit, and scheduling an execution order”” do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the imitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161