DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The instant application having application No. 19/046,997 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claim and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
IFORMATION CONCENING DRAWING:
3. Application’s drawing submitted on 02/05/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 2001.06(b) and 37 C.F.R. 1.98(d), since the instant application has been identified as a continuation application of an earlier filed application and is relied upon for an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, the examiner has reviewed the prior art cited in the earlier related application as required by M.P.E.P. 707.05 and 904 and as stated in M.P.E.P. 2001.06(b), no separate citation of the same prior art need be made by the applicants in the instant application.
INFORMATION CONCERNING IDS:
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on 04/15/2025, 07/21/2025, and 01/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner and a copy (copies) of PTOL-1449(s) initiated and signed by the Examiner is/are attached.
INFORMATION CONCERNING CLAIMS:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
8. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include mental process, mathematical concept, and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis (see MPEP 2106)
9. Claims 2-19 are recite a system, comprising: one or more processors and a memory. The independent claim 20 recites A method, comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors. The independent claim 21 recites A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: obtaining, by one or more processors. The claims are directed machine, and useful processes which are included in categories of invention (step 1-yes).
10. The independent claims 1, 20, and 21 analyzed to determine whether directed to any of judicial exception. The independent claim 1 recites, in part the limitation:
“evaluate the formula to obtain a result”
Evaluating the formula to obtain a result is considered mental process and/or mathematical concept (e.g., abstract idea). “More recent opinions of the Supreme Court, however, have affirmatively characterized mathematical relationships and formulas as abstract ideas” (e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), under “Mathematical Concepts” heading). Therefore, the claims are directed to judicial exception and includes abstract idea (Step 2A-yes).
11. Next, the claim 1 is analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 additionally recites:
“A system, comprising: one or more processors;
and a memory including instructions, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: obtain a data structure comprising a plurality of locations;
receive a request to store an updated value for a particular location of the data structure;
in response to storing the updated value for the particular location, invalidate a value for another location that depend on the particular location;
determine that the other location comprises a formula that is to be evaluated to obtain the value;
and store the result as the value for the particular location in association with the other location.”
The remaining limitations as shown above directed to obtaining a data structure comprising a plurality locations, response to a request store an updated value in a particular location, invalidate a value for another location that depend on the particular location, determine another location, determine another location that comprising a formula that is to be evaluated to obtain the value; and store the result as the value for the particular location in association with the other location. These above limitations recite the limitations for accessing locations to obtain value or store updated value, it also include a limitation that is to a determine a location that comprises a Formula.
Each of independent claims 20 and 21 recite the limitation of:
“evaluating the formula to obtain a result”
and, the remaining limitations in the independent claims 20 and 21 are substantially the same as described above with respect to independent claim 2.
The claims do not include limitations that are amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
12. Claims 3-5 are dependent from claim 2. Claims 3-4 recite particular location for which the updated data is stored. The claims do not include limitations that are amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
13. Claims 6-7 are dependent from claim 5. Claim 6 recite setting end time for the validity period. Claim 7 recite that value for the other location is invalidated for a reading process having an associated timestamp. The claims do not include limitations that are amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
14. Claim 8 dependent from claim 2, recite the other location is determined to comprise the formula (e.g., providing formula to be evaluated, relates to abstract idea).
15. Claim 10 dependent from claim 2, recites the particular location is associated with an anchor object that stores version information. The claim does not include limitations amounting to significantly more than abstract idea.
15. Claims 11-15 are dependent from claim 10. Claims 11-12 comprise limitations associated with the particular location. Claims 13-15 recite validity information associated with snapshot, it comprises validity period, start date, and end data. The claims do not include limitations that are amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
16. Claim 16 dependent from claim 2, recites obtain a reader timestamp associated with the reading process and determine whether the version information for the other location stores a pointer to a snapshot information matching the reader timestamp. The claim does not include limitations amounting significantly more than abstract idea
17. Claims 17-19 are dependent from claim 16. They comprise limitations associated with version information related to the snapshot. The claims do not include limitations that are amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
Conclusion
18. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vemuri et al. (US 12204519 B1) teaches “…in response to determining that the particular location comprises the first formula, evaluate the first formula to obtain a result…" (claim 1, this reference associated with the same entity/inventors as application but does not qualify as prior art or double-patenting rejection ).
Pandey et al. (US 11170012 B2) teaches “… a summation result based on execution of said formula and further based on a summation of said unique new sessions and said unique carry forward sessions…” (claim 1).
Lemelson (US 20070219994 A1) teaches "… summing the one or more results with a weighted formula to thereby obtain a sum...' (par. 0009).
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHEM FARROKH whose telephone number is (571)272-4193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
22. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
23. 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 htto://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions regarding 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.
/HASHEM FARROKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138