Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 19/041,207, filed on 1/30/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/18/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/649,896 filed on 05/20/2024
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 6,8,12,17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1,12,20, A method for data processing, comprising:
It is unclear what is meant by receiving, at a database that comprises extension-based functionality, a database query request to perform a machine learning inference operation on data stored in the database, wherein the machine learning inference operation is to be performed at the database in accordance with the extension-based functionality, appears indefinite for failing to particularly point out claim limitation
As to Claim 6,17,it is unclear what is meant by receiving an indication of one or more prompt parameters that are to be included in the prompt, appears indefinite for failing to particularly point out claim limitation
As to Claim 8,19 The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more prompt parameters comprise one or more indications of operations that are to be performed in the machine learning inference operation, appears indefinite for failing to particularly point out claim limitation
As to Claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “receiving the response from the processing model, the response comprising the processed version of the data, appears indefinite as claim limitation do not either process[ed] version data or change version of data.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Claim 1, 12,20
receiving, at a database that comprises extension-based functionality, a database query request to perform a machine learning inference operation on data stored in the database, wherein the machine learning inference operation is to be performed at the database in accordance with the extension-based functionality;
instantiating, in accordance with the extension-based functionality, a user- defined function (UDF) for performing machine learning inference operations;
calling, with the UDF, the machine learning inference operation to process, at the database, the data retrieved from a table of the database; and
transmitting a response to the database query request, the response indicating an output of the machine learning inference operation, the output comprising a processed version of the data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, receiving, perform[ing] at the database, data retrieved from table , transmitting response to the database in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking processing data
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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of database, machine learning interface, perform[ing] data retriev[ing] from table to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0077-0081, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: para 0077-0081 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc..
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,13, further elaborates “wherein:
the data comprises a plurality of tuples stored at the database; and
the machine learning inference operation processes the data on a tuple-by- tuple basis”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,14 The method of claim 2, wherein processing the data on a tuple-by-tuple basis comprises:
processing the plurality of tuples based at least in part on a first parameter associated with a first tuple element included in each tuple of the plurality of tuples and further based at least in part on a second parameter associated with a second tuple element included in each tuple of the plurality of tuples”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,14 The method of claim 2, further comprising:
inferring, with the machine learning inference operation, information that is associated with one or more tuples of the plurality of tuples and that is not included in a tuple element of the one or more tuples of the plurality of tuples;
wherein the machine learning inference operation is based at least in part on the information”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein calling the machine learning inference operation comprises:
providing a prompt that indicates the data to a processing model that performs the machine learning inference operation; and
receiving the response from the processing model, the response comprising the processed version of the data”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,17 The method of claim 5, further comprising: receiving an indication of one or more prompt parameters that are to be included in the prompt”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,18 The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more prompt parameters comprise an instruction to provide a structured data output in response to a structured data input in the prompt”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8,19 , further elaborates “wherein the one or more prompt parameters comprise one or more indications of operations that are to be performed in the machine learning inference operation”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9, further elaborates “wherein the processing model is a quantized local processing model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ngan et al., (hereafter Ngan), US Pub. No. 2025/0335438 filed Apr, 2024
As to Claim 1, 12,20, Ngan teaches a system which including “A method for data processing, comprising: (Ngan : fig 1, 0042 – Ngan teaches data processing system particularly using database in a cloud computing platform)
“receiving, at a database that comprises extension-based functionality, a database query request to perform a machine learning inference operation on data stored in the database, wherein the machine learning inference operation is to be performed at the database in accordance with the extension-based functionality” (Ngan: fig 1, 0028-0029, 0038-0040,0077,0082-0084 – Ngan teaches cloud computing platform interacting with database particularly, cloud data platform (element 102) including machine learning model(s) interacting with one or more system functions, further set of processes on computer node to execute the query plan, the extension based functionality corresponds to Ngan’s cloud platform and user defined function used in machine learning model is identical to instant specification 0033,0040-0041) ;
PNG
media_image1.png
234
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“instantiating, in accordance with the extension-based functionality, a user- defined function (UDF) for performing machine learning inference operations” (Ngan: 0084-0085, fig 5 – Ngan teaches data platform supports to define user defined function or UDF i.e., custom function instantiating natural language queries or patterns using machine learning model trained to execute queries in cloud platform that including training process include feature extraction and user defined function corresponds to Ngan’s UDF, fig 5, element 504) ;
PNG
media_image2.png
182
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“calling, with the UDF, the machine learning inference operation to process, at the database, the data retrieved from a table of the database” (Ngan: fig 4-5, 0107-0108, 0120-0121 – Ngan teaches data platform uses a machine learning model trained to retrieve data for example query history data is used a training data for the machine learning model. The prior art of Ngan further teaches user defined function performs table aggregation and specific column aggregation, and overall data retrieved from a table as table aggregation element 512);
PNG
media_image3.png
244
163
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“transmitting a response to the database query request, the response indicating an output of the machine learning inference operation, the output comprising a processed version of the data” (Ngan: fig 8, 0190 – Ngan teaches trained machine learning element 802 not only analyzing query data, but also generates respective output i.e, machine learning program element 802 generates the prediction/inference data element 822 as output).
PNG
media_image4.png
403
229
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2,13, Ngan disclosed:
“the data comprises a plurality of tuples stored at the database” (Ngan: fig 7, 0176-0177 – Ngan teaches data structure of database defining table(s), attributes); and
“the machine learning inference operation processes the data on a tuple-by- tuple basis” (Ngan: fig 1, 0039-0040,0079 – machine learning model analyze and identify not only tables attributes, but also specific columns and respective elements referring such as history data attributes)
PNG
media_image5.png
232
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
234
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3,14, Ngan disclosed:
“processing the plurality of tuples based at least in part on a first parameter associated with a first tuple element included in each tuple of the plurality of tuples and further based at least in part on a second parameter associated with a second tuple element included in each tuple of the plurality of tuples” (Ngan: 0037,0043,0071, 0077, 0115, 0118).
As to Claim 4,14, Ngan disclosed:
“inferring, with the machine learning inference operation, information that is associated with one or more tuples of the plurality of tuples and that is not included in a tuple element of the one or more tuples of the plurality of tuples” (Ngan: 0120-0121,0123-0124)
“wherein the machine learning inference operation is based at least in part on the information. (Ngan: fig 1, fig 8, 0039,0181,0183)
As to Claim 5, Ngan disclosed:
“providing a prompt that indicates the data to a processing model that performs the machine learning inference operation” (fig 1, 0039, 0070-0071, 0080-0081) and
“receiving the response from the processing model, the response comprising the processed version of the data” (Ngan : fig 1, 0028-0029, 0038-0040,0077,0082-0084) .
As to Claim 6,17, Ngan disclosed: “receiving an indication of one or more prompt parameters that are to be included in the prompt” (Ngan: 0070-0072).
As to Claim 7,18, Ngan disclosed “wherein the one or more prompt parameters comprise an instruction to provide a structured data output in response to a structured data input in the prompt” (Ngan:0070-0072,0100-0101)
As to Claim 8,19, Ngan disclosed “wherein the one or more prompt parameters comprise one or more indications of operations that are to be performed in the machine learning inference operation” (Ngan: Abstract, 0080-0083,0183-0184).
As to Claim 9, Ngan disclosed “wherein the processing model is a quantized local processing model” (Ngan: 0185, 0190-0192)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2025/0335438
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references 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 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 entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154