DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed April 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 36 are currently amended. Claims 21-36 are pending in this application.
This application is a CON of US Patent Application 18/163,490 filed 02/02/2023, which is now US PAT 12265534. US Patent Application 18/163,490 is a CON of US Patent Application 16/838,459 filed 04/02/2020, which is now US PAT 11580102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 21-36 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. Claims 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 36 recite the terms “iterative function” and “iterative operator.” However, in view of the specification, it is unclear as to exactly what the terms mean and how they differ from each other. The specification does not mention either term, but instead mentions an “iteration function” (paragraph 228), “iterative process” (paragraphs 313-314) and “replay operator”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 22-28 and 30-36 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 21 and 29.
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 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21 and 36 recite: generate a set of query operations based on the iterative function; generate an iterative operator regarding iterative execution of the set of query operations, wherein the iterative function includes a first set of conditions, a first set of control parameters, a desired result and replay information, wherein the replay information establishes an updated set of conditions, wherein the replay information indicates repeat execution of the set of query operations based on adjusting one or more of the first set of conditions and one or more of the first set of parameters until the desired result is achieved or a termination condition of the replay information is met; and optimize the query to include the iterative operator. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) generate query operations, generate an iterative operator regarding iterative execution of the query operations, and optimize the query to include the iterative operator.
The examiner would like to note that the step “obtain a query that includes a plurality of query operations regarding a dataset, wherein the dataset includes a plurality of rows of columnar data, wherein the columnar data includes a plurality of columns of data, wherein the query
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional step of “obtain a query that includes a plurality of query operations regarding a dataset, wherein the dataset includes a plurality of rows of columnar data, wherein the columnar data includes a plurality of columns of data, wherein the queryof a database system” the computer components are recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are used to perform an abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the recitation of “obtain” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, as discussed above, the recitation of a computer to perform claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 22 and 30 recite the additional element “wherein the set of processing resources includes one or more processing core resources”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because that above additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 23 and 31 recite “wherein the obtaining the query includes one of: receiving the query; looking up the query; and generating the query.” In the case where obtaining the query comprises generating the query, the claim recites a mental process because a user can mentally generate a query. In the case where obtaining the query comprises “receiving the query; or looking up the query,” the additional step of receiving or looking up would be mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, 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 because recitation of “receiving” or “looking up” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 24 and 32 recite: wherein the iterative function includes at least one of: a window function; an aggregation function; a recursive query function; an aggregation by group function; and a convergence computation. This limitation further describes the iterative function that is part of the mental processes of claims 21 and 29, and thus is also directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements, and thus this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 25 and 33 recite: wherein the iterative function includes a second set of conditions, a second set of execution control parameters, a second desired result and second replay information, wherein the second replay information establishes a second updated set of conditions, wherein the second replay information indicates repeat execution of the set of query operations based on adjusting one or more of the second set of conditions and one or more of the second set of parameters until the second desired result is achieved or a second termination condition of the second replay information is met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) generate an iterative operator/function having a second set of conditions, parameters, desired result, and replay information. There are no additional elements in claims 25 and 33, and thus this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 26 and 34 recite: wherein the iterative function produces the first desired result or the second desired result based on which is achieved first. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that the step falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) generate an iterative operator/function the produces the first desired result or the second desired result based on which is achieved first. There are no additional elements in claims 26 and 34, and thus this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 27 and 35 recite the additional element processing cores operable to “when the desired result is achieved: execute the query”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because that above additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 28 and 36 recite: generate a second set of query operations based on the second iterative function; generate a second iterative operator regarding iterative execution of the second set of query operations, wherein the second iterative function includes a third set of conditions, a third set of
The examiner would like to note that the step “obtain a second query that includes a plurality of second query operations regarding a dataset, wherein the second querythe second query” analyzed as an additional element to mean receiving or looking up the query.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional step of “obtain a second query that includes a second plurality of query operations regarding the dataset, wherein the second query includes a second iterative function” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. In the additional elements “wherein a second set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources is operable to” and “a second memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a second set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources of the query and response sub-system of the database system, causes the second set of processing core resources to” the computer components are recited at a high level of generality. The computer components are used to perform an abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the recitation of “obtain” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, as discussed above, the recitation of a computer to perform claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-36 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights