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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC §112f
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a data acquisition module”, “a first data storage module” “a first hash modulo module” “an information identifier generation module” “a second hash modulo module” “an information table location module” “a data storage sub-module” and “a second data storage module” in claim 9 and “a request acquisition module” “an identifier lookup module” and a “a data reading module” in claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Firstly, a review of Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs [0018] and [0019] discloses, “a data acquisition module, configured for obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises: a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information; a first data storage module, configured for respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: a first hash modulo module performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server; an information identifier generation module obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server; according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding; a second hash modulo module performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; an information table location module according toa category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month; a data storage sub-module storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table; and a second data storage module storing the target user identifier ” respectively. The Specification thus does not disclose sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of a 35 U.S.C. §112f limitation. Examiner will interpret the various modules according to equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112a
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 9 and 10 recite “a data acquisition module”, “a first data storage module” “a first hash modulo module” “an information identifier generation module” “a second hash modulo module” “an information table location module” “a data storage sub-module” and “a second data storage module” in claim 9 and “a request acquisition module” “an identifier lookup module” and a “a data reading module” in claim 10 and the Specification does not disclose sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of a 35 U.S.C. 112f limitation. The claims scope is therefore defective in its written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112b
7. 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.
8. Claims 9 and 10 recite Claims 9 and 10 recite “a data acquisition module”, “a first data storage module” “a first hash modulo module” “an information identifier generation module” “a second hash modulo module” “an information table location module” “a data storage sub-module” and “a second data storage module” in claim 9 and “a request acquisition module” “an identifier lookup module” and a “a data reading module” in claim 10 and the Specification does not disclose sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of a 35 U.S.C. 112f limitation. The claims scope is not clear and therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
9. 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 – 10 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 analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites, “A device order data storage method, wherein the method comprises:…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server;” and “performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month and according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding;.”
The limitation of determine of performing modulo operations as drafted, are process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations or calculations. Second random generation of numbers is a mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually analyzing target information and using modulo operations to position such data.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Thus the steps of “respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server;” and “performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month and according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding;” are mathematical operations that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of, “obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises: a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information;” “obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server;” “storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table;” and “and storing the target user identifier, a first information identifier corresponding to the device order information, and a second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information in association in a designated database.” These steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since obtaining data and storing data a mere data gathering steps.
The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises: a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information;” “obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server;” “storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table;” and “and storing the target user identifier, a first information identifier corresponding to the device order information, and a second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information in association in a designated database” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Naoyuki Sakazki, (United States Patent Publication Number 20120209521) which teaches in paragraph [0030] “In the programs stored in the program storing unit 3 is included a program, which is used by the controlling unit 2 to perform a data obtaining process” and “The program storing unit 3 comprises ROM (Read Only Memory), etc, which store various sorts of programs and data required for the controlling unit 2 (particularly, CPU) to control the operation of the action-history recording apparatus 1.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server comprises: obtaining an ASCII code value corresponding to each character in the target user identifier; performing a first hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple characters, to obtain a first decimal hash value; applying the first decimal hash value to perform a first modulo operation on the number of servers, to obtain server location information; and determining the target server based on the server location information.” Performing further math operations are abstract ideas.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
The additional steps of “wherein the step of performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server comprises: obtaining an ASCII code value corresponding to each character in the target user identifier; performing a first hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple characters, to obtain a first decimal hash value; applying the first decimal hash value to perform a first modulo operation on the number of servers, to obtain server location information; and determining the target server based on the server location information” are further math operations and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 2 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of performing a first hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple characters, to obtain a first decimal hash value comprises: calculating the first decimal hash value according to following formula:Y.+i = K xY. + Xn,where the first decimal hash value after a n-th character operation is represented by Y~+1, a decimal hash value after a (n-1)-th character operation is represented by Ya, an ASCII code value corresponding to the n-th character is represented by X,, Y1=0, K represents a constant coefficient, n = 1, 2, 3 ... N, N represents a total number of characters.” Performing further math operations are abstract ideas.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
The additional steps of “wherein the step of performing a first hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple characters, to obtain a first decimal hash value comprises: calculating the first decimal hash value according to following formula:Y.+i = K xY. + Xn,where the first decimal hash value after a n-th character operation is represented by Y~+1, a decimal hash value after a (n-1)-th character operation is represented by Ya, an ASCII code value corresponding to the n-th character is represented by X,, Y1=0, K represents a constant coefficient, n = 1, 2, 3 ... N, N represents a total number of characters” are further math operations and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information comprises: taking the target device identifier as a fixed serial number, and based on the server identifier, the current timestamp, and the fixed serial number, randomly generating a binary encoding of a specified number of digits through the snowflake algorithm; and converting the binary encoding into a decimal encoding to obtain the information identifier corresponding to the current information.” Performing random number generation in its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematical processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
The additional steps of “wherein the step of according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information comprises: taking the target device identifier as a fixed serial number, and based on the server identifier, the current timestamp, and the fixed serial number, randomly generating a binary encoding of a specified number of digits through the snowflake algorithm; and converting the binary encoding into a decimal encoding to obtain the information identifier corresponding to the current information” are further math operations and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database comprises: obtaining an ASCII code value corresponding to the digit at the specified bit in the information identifier; performing a second hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple digits, to obtain a second decimal hash value; applying the second decimal hash value to perform a second modulo operation on the number of databases in the target server, to obtain database location information; and determining the target database in the target server based on the database location information.” Performing random number generation in its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematical processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
The additional steps of “wherein the step of performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database comprises: obtaining an ASCII code value corresponding to the digit at the specified bit in the information identifier; performing a second hash operation based on ASCII code values corresponding to multiple digits, to obtain a second decimal hash value; applying the second decimal hash value to perform a second modulo operation on the number of databases in the target server, to obtain database location information; and determining the target database in the target server based on the database location information” are further math operations and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple corresponding information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month comprises: determining the target month based on the current timestamp; determining, from the multiple corresponding information tables of the target database, multiple information tables corresponding to the target month; and according to the category of the current information, determining the target information table from the multiple information tables corresponding to the target month.” The limitation of determine a target month and multiple correspond to the target month, determine target information table are processes that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental process. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually analyzing target information.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Thus the steps of “wherein the step of according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple corresponding information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month comprises: determining the target month based on the current timestamp; determining, from the multiple corresponding information tables of the target database, multiple information tables corresponding to the target month; and according to the category of the current information, determining the target information table from the multiple information tables corresponding to the target month;” are mental processes that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Independent claim 7 recites, “A device order data storage method, wherein the method comprises:…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “obtaining a query request for the target device order data, wherein the query request carries the target user identifier;” “retrieving, from the designated database, the first information identifier corresponding to the device order information associated with the target user identifier and the second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information based on the target user identifier;” “and respectively using the first information identifier and the second information identifier as current identifiers, performing reverse resolution based on the current identifiers to determine the information table corresponding to the target month in the target database of the target server;” and “reading information corresponding to the current identifiers from the information table corresponding to the target month.” These steps are recited at a high level of generality and are mere data gathering steps. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. The courts have held that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; as an example of insufficient showing of an improvement in technology. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 7 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the step of performing reverse resolution based on the current identifiers to determine the information table corresponding to the target month in the target database of the target server comprises: decrypting the current identifiers to obtain the target server identifier and the target timestamp; determining the target server corresponding to the target server identifier; performing a hash modulo operation on the digit at the specified bit in the current identifier to determine the target database in the target server; and locating the information table corresponding to the target month from the multiple information tables corresponding to the target database based on the target timestamp.” Decryption and performing modulo operations as drafted are processes that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually performing mathematical operations. These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mathematical concepts.” Mathematical operations - concepts falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 9 recites, “a device order data storage apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: a data acquisition module, configured for obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises:…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 9 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “a first data storage module, configured for respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: first hash modulo module performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server;”, “according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding;” “a second hash modulo module performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; an information table location module, according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month.”
The limitation of determine of performing modulo operations as drafted, are process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations or calculations. Second random generation of numbers is a mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually analyzing target information and using modulo operations to position such data.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Thus the steps of “a first data storage module, configured for respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: first hash modulo module performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server;”, “according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding;” “a second hash modulo module performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; an information table location module, according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month;” are mathematical operations that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of, “obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises: a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information;” “obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server;” “storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table;” and “and storing the target user identifier, a first information identifier corresponding to the device order information, and a second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information in association in a designated database.” These steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since obtaining data and storing data a mere data gathering steps.
The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information;” “an information identifier generation module obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server;” “a data storage sub-module storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table;” and “a second data storage module, configured for storing the target user identifier, a first information identifier corresponding to the device order information, and a second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information in association in a designated database” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Naoyuki Sakazki, (United States Patent Publication Number 20120209521) which teaches in paragraph [0030] “In the programs stored in the program storing unit 3 is included a program, which is used by the controlling unit 2 to perform a data obtaining process” and “The program storing unit 3 comprises ROM (Read Only Memory), etc, which store various sorts of programs and data required for the controlling unit 2 (particularly, CPU) to control the operation of the action-history recording apparatus 1.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 recites, “a device order data query apparatus, wherein the apparatus is applied to a server, the server stores data saved using the device order data storage method according to claim 1, and the apparatus comprises::…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 10 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “and a data reading module, configured for respectively using the first information identifier and the second information identifier as current identifiers, performing reverse resolution based on the current identifiers to determine the information table corresponding to the target month in the target database of the target server, and reading information corresponding to the current identifiers from the information table corresponding to the target month.” Performing a reverse resolution based on identifiers is an observation that one can perform mentally through an evaluation and judgment of table data. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Thus the steps of “respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server;” and “performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server; according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month and according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding;” are mathematical operations that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of, “a request acquisition module, configured for obtaining a query request for the target device order data, wherein the query request carries the target user identifier;” and “an identifier lookup module, configured for retrieving, from the designated database, the first information identifier corresponding to the device order information associated with the target user identifier and the second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information based on the target user identifier.” These steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since obtaining data and storing data a mere data gathering steps.
The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “a request acquisition module, configured for obtaining a query request for the target device order data, wherein the query request carries the target user identifier;” and “an identifier lookup module, configured for retrieving, from the designated database, the first information identifier corresponding to the device order information associated with the target user identifier and the second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information based on the target user identifier.” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Naoyuki Sakazki, (United States Patent Publication Number 20120209521) which teaches in paragraph [0027] “sending/receiving an electromagnetic wave, on which a radio signal in conformity with CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) system is overlapped, and further comprises a modulation/demodulation circuit for modulating/demodulating a signal to be transmitted or received.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The overall concept of the claimed invention is the need to solve the problem of data splitting in solving the problem of large amount of increasing data, in a Big Data paradigm where data reading becomes increasingly difficult.
The prior art search did not find the following recited limitations in independent claim 1, “according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding; performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server.”
The prior art of record, Mahesh et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2016/0094531), hereinafter Mahesh teaches, “A device order data storage method, wherein the method comprises: obtaining target device order data, wherein the target device order data comprises: a target user identifier, a target device identifier, device order information, and software detail information; respectively taking the device order information and the software detail information as current information, and performing following storage steps: performing a first hash modulo operation according to the target user identifier to position a target server; obtaining a current timestamp and a server identifier of the target server,” whilst Branish II et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0101129 ), hereinafter referred to as Branish II teaches “according to a category of the current information and the current timestamp, positioning, from multiple information tables of the target database, a target information table corresponding to a target month; storing the current information and the information identifier corresponding to the current information in the target information table; and storing the target user identifier, a first information identifier corresponding to the device order information, and a second information identifier corresponding to the software detail information in association in a designated database.”
Thus the prior arts of record Mahesh and Branish II fail to teach neither singly nor in combination, “according to the server identifier, the current timestamp, the target device identifier and a snowflake algorithm, randomly generating an information identifier corresponding to the current information, wherein the information identifier is in decimal encoding; performing a second hash modulo operation on a digit at a specified bit in the information identifier, to position a target database in the target server.”
The invention utilizes the efficiency of data splitting to solve the problem of large amount of increasing data, in a Big Data paradigm where data reading becomes increasingly difficult.
Dependent claims 2 – 6 inherit the same recitation as above would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Independent claims 7, 9 and 10 incorporate by reference the allowable subject matter of independent claim 1 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action
Dependent claim 8 inherit the same recitation independent claim 7 above would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Dalal et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20110225287) teaches in paragraph [0045] “The partitioning of the hit data can be based, for example, on a partition key, preferably a hash function or modulo of a visitor identification (ID), such as visitor ID 350. The visitor ID 350 can be parsed from the hit data. Any of the hit data, for example, hit data 310, 320, and 330 can include event attributes 355, and/or different visitor IDs, among other types of data. The partitioning function can include, for example, a hash or modulo operation based on the visitor ID 350. For example, if there are L bands, the assigned band for a particular individual or visitor can be determined by performing the function of visitor ID modulo L”
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469) 295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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).
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166