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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 recites “adding them to Si; if | Si| is greater than Ti” in line 8. The claim contains a semicolon which is conventionally utilized to denote the end of a claim limitation. It remains unclear whether the claim should recite a comma or whether the claim limitation after the semicolon should be a new claim limitation on a new line. An appropriate correction is required.
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 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 8 recites:
constructing a support set Si for each relation Ri in a database D according to a size |S| of the support set specified by a data seller, each support set Si containing a possible value set of tuples in a corresponding relation Ri, each support set Si being stored in a database server where D is located;
for a query Q on a single table Ri input by a data consumer, replacing a name of the table Ri in the query Q with Si;
calculating an information gain (|S.sub.i|−|E.sub.t|) of each tuple t in Ri under Q according to the query results O and O′, accumulating the information gain of all tuples in Ri, and setting a price of the query Q for trading according to an information gain-based pricing function selected by the data seller, where Et represents the possible value set of each tuple t, and (|Si |− [ Et]) represents uncertainties eliminated by t under Q, that is, the information gain of tuple t;
for a query Q on a multi-table R1, R2, . . . , Rk input by the data consumer, rewriting the query Q to Q′ and building auxiliary queries Q1, Q2, . . . , Qk on support sets S1, S2, . . . , Sk based on Q′…and deduplicating the extracted results to obtain Oi and O’i, i=1, . . . ,k; and
calculating an information gain (|Si|−| Et|) of each tuple t in Ri under Q according to each set of results Oi and O’i, accumulating the information gain of all tuples in Ri, obtaining a price of query Q on Ri according to the information gain-based pricing function selected by the data seller, and obtaining the price of query Q for trading by accumulating the prices on all relationship tables Ri.
The limitations “for a query Q on a single table Ri input by a data consumer, replacing a name of the table Ri in the query Q with Si and obtaining an auxiliary query Q′ on the support set Si,” and “for a query Q on a multi-table R1, R2, . . . , Rk input by the data consumer, rewriting the query Q to Q′ and building auxiliary queries Q1, Q2, . . . , Qk on support sets S1, S2, . . . , Sk based on Q′, and…deduplicating the extracted results to obtain Oi and O’i, i=1, . . . ,k”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “replacing” and encompasses a user changing table values with a replacement value and removing duplicates (deduplicating) from returned results. 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.
The limitations “constructing a support set Si for each relation Ri in a database D according to a size |S| of the support set specified by a data seller, each support set Si containing a possible value set of tuples in a corresponding relation Ri, each support set Si being stored in a database server where D is located;” “calculating an information gain (|S.sub.i|−|E.sub.t|) of each tuple t in Ri under Q according to the query results O and O′, accumulating the information gain of all tuples in Ri, and setting a price of the query Q for trading according to an information gain-based pricing function selected by the data seller, where Et represents the possible value set of each tuple t, and (|Si |− [ Et]) represents uncertainties eliminated by t under Q, that is, the information gain of tuple t;” and “calculating an information gain (|Si|−| Et|) of each tuple t in Ri under Q according to each set of results Oi and O’i, accumulating the information gain of all tuples in Ri, obtaining a price of query Q on Ri according to the information gain-based pricing function selected by the data seller, and obtaining the price of query Q for trading by accumulating the prices on all relationship tables Ri”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, constructing a support set; calculating information gain from a first result set and calculating information gain from a second results set encompass mathematically determining sets and calculating information gain via employed algorithms based on various queries and result set data values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance mathematical concepts, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “processing device.” The device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device). The claim further recites:
“executing queries Q and Q′ in the database server and obtaining query results O and O′,”
“executing the queries Q′, Q1, Q2, . . . , Qk to obtain query results W, W1, W2, . . . , Wk; for each relation Ri, extracting data W′ and W’i of the query results W and Wi on Ri”
These elements represent mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements represent mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device 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 other additional elements “executing queries Q and Q′ in the database server and obtaining query results O and O′,” and “executing the queries Q′, Q1, Q2, . . . , Qk to obtain query results W, W1, W2, . . . , Wk; for each relation Ri, extracting data W′ and W’i of the query results W and Wi on Ri” represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality. According to the courts, data gathering steps do not constitute limitations that provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 1, 15 and 16 are similarly rejected as Claim 8 above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend on claims 1 and 8 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-14 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 7, further recite algorithms for setting up the set and relationship table; algorithms for calculating first information gain; and algorithms for calculating the overall information gain. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements merely implement mathematical algorithms. 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 “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-3 and 7, recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical algorithms, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-3 and 7, are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-10 and 14 are similarly rejected as claims 2-3 and 7 above.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation “wherein the query rewrite and auxiliary query generation on the multiple tables R1, R2, . . . , Rk are as follows: for all tables R1, R2, . . . , Rk, involved in query Q, adding primary key attributes of all tables R1, R2, . . . , Rk into the Selection clause of query Q to rewrite query Q into query Q’; based on Q’, for each table Ri (i=1,2,..k) involved in the query Q, replacing the table name Ri in Q’ with Si to obtain the auxiliary query Qi i=1,2…k”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of adding attributes to a table and replacing elements of a query with other determined values. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a further mental process step. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation “wherein the query result extraction process is as follows: checking each column in W or Wᵢ in turn since that the query Q' or Qi is the multi-table query, and that the query result W or Wᵢ includes multiple rows and columns of data; retaining a column of data if the column belongs to the relation Ri; otherwise removing the column to obtain the result W' or W'i of W or Wᵢ on Ri.”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of modifying table data based on observed values. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 5 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a further mental process step. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the additional limitation “wherein the query result deduplication process comprises: based on the situation that the query Q' or Qi is a multi-table query, and that the extracted query result W' or W'i may contain duplicate data, checking each row in W' or W'i in turn to remove duplicate query results, and deleting a primary key column added during the query rewriting process to obtain Oᵢ or O'ᵢ”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of checking for duplicate data and modifying query data based on the observation and evaluation. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 6 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a further mental process step. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-13 are similarly rejected as claims 4-6 above.
Examiner’s Notes
The prior art (Ratnaparkhi) teaches a method of determining predictive queries based on features in selected categories of interest (see [0024]). The prior art (Koutris et al., Query based data pricing) teaches a framework for pricing data on the internet to allow sellers to adjust pricing based on performance characteristics (see pp. 43:2- 43:3). The prior art of record, alone or in combination with each other, does not expressly disclose calculation of information gain from tuples in the relation table associated with a first query, in combination with, calculation of information gain from tuples in a relation table associated with auxiliary queries in order to obtain a price for the first query.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ratnaparkhi, US 2011/0264513. Method of determining predictive queries based on features in selected categories of interest (see [0024]).
Koutris et al., Query based data pricing. J. ACM 62, 5, Article 43 (October 2015), 44 pages.
Blanc et al., Query strategies for priced information, revisited. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 1638-1650. (October 23, 2020).
Koutris et al., Toward Practical Query Pricing with QueryMarket. SIGMOD ’13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 613-624 (June 22, 2013).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights