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 . According to the claim amendment filed on 02/12/2025, claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rohitashva Mathur (hereinafter Mathur) US Publication No 20200250166.
As per claim 1, Mathur teaches:
A method for generating a custom index, comprising:
determining at least one first-order operator, and determining a data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator in the at least one first-order operator, the first- order operator being an index of basic category or custom category;
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136], wherein the total-sales field is the operator)
and generating the custom index based on the at least one first-order operator and the data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator, the custom index being an index of the custom category, wherein the custom index is capable of serving as the first-order operator, to generate a new custom index.
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [0068], [0078], [0087] and [0136], wherein the total-sales field is the operator)
As per claim 2, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 1, wherein the determining at least one first-order operator comprises:
receiving one or more first selection operations performed by a user on an index set via a terminal device, to determine one or more first-order operators.
(Paragraphs [0068], [0093] and [0100])
As per claim 3, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 1, wherein the determining a data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator in the at least one first-order operator comprises:
performing the following processes on each first-order operator:
determining, based on a set of data processing rules corresponding to a data type of the first-order operator, one data processing rule in a set of data processing rules as the data processing rule of the first-order operator, wherein the data type of the first-order operators is numeric, character, time, or geography;
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136], wherein the total-sales field is the operator)
data processing rules corresponding to the numerical value comprise one or more of the following:
averaging, summing, counting, de- duplication counting, maximum, minimum, value proportion and accumulation.
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136], wherein the total-sales field is the averaging)
As per claim 7, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 1, wherein when the at least one first-order operator comprises a plurality of first-order operators, the method further comprises:
determining operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators;
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136])
wherein the generating the custom index based on the at least one first-order operator and the data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator, comprises: generating the custom index based on the plurality of first-order operators, the data processing rule corresponding to each the first-order operator, and the operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators.
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136])
As per claim 8, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 7, wherein the operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators comprise an operation order and one or more operators as follows:
arithmetic operator, comparison operator, and logical operator, and the operator order is used for indicating an operational precedence; wherein the determining operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators, comprises: receiving a fifth text entry operation and/or a fifth selection operation performed by the user, to determine operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators.
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136], wherein the total-sales field is the arithmetic operation)
As per claim 11, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 1, further comprising: using an index editor to provide a custom index generating interface, wherein the custom index generating interface comprises:
a combo box, configured to receive first text entry operations and/or first selection operations performed by a user,
(Paragraphs [0115], [0118], [0122])
to determine at least one first-order operators;
(Paragraphs [0115], [0118], [0122])
a formula edit box, configured to display each first-order operator in the at least one first-order operator determined by the user through an operator control, and to receive rule selection operations performed by the user for a drop-down list box in the operator control, to determine a data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator;
(Paragraphs [0115], [0118], [0122])
an index generating button, configured to generate a custom index based on the at least one first-order operator and the data processing rule corresponding to each first-order operator upon being clicked, the custom index being of custom category; wherein the custom index is capable of serving as the first-order operator, to generate a new custom index.
(Paragraphs [0115], [0118], [0122])
Claim 14 is electronic device claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
As per claim 16, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 1, wherein the determining at least one first-order operator comprises:
receiving one or more first text entry operations performed by the user via a terminal device, and identifying one or more first-order operators based on received one or more first text entry operations.
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Vemulapalli et al (hereinafter Vemulapalli) US Publication No 20210357373.
As per claim 4, Mathur does not explicitly determining at least one second-order operator corresponding to the first-order operators, and determining a secondary filtering rule corresponding to each second-order operator in the at least one second-order operator, however in analogous art of data management, Vemulapalli teaches:
performing the following processes on one or more first-order operators in the at least one first-order operator:
determining at least one second-order operator corresponding to the first-order operators, and determining a secondary filtering rule corresponding to each second-order operator in the at least one second-order operator, the second-order operator being an index of basic category or custom category, wherein the generating the custom index based on the at least one first-order operator and the data processing rule corresponding to each the first-order operator, comprises: generating the custom index based on the at least one first-order operator and the data processing rule corresponding to each the first-order operator, and the at least one second-order operator and the secondary filtering rule corresponding to each the second-order operator.
(Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0052], [0056], [0063], [0065] and [0071])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Vemulapalli by incorporating the teaching of Vemulapalli into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Vemulapalli into the system of Mathur for the purpose of performing efficient queries.
As per claim 5, Mathur and Vemulapalli teach:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 4, wherein the determining at least one second-order operator corresponding to the first-order operators, comprises:
receiving one or more second selection operations performed by the user for the index set via a terminal device, to determine one or more second-order operators; or receiving one or more second text entry operations performed by the user, to identify the one or more second-order operators based on received one or more second text entry operations via a terminal device, wherein the determining a secondary filtering rule corresponding to each second-order operator in the at least one second-order operator, comprises: receiving third text entry operations and/or third selection operations performed by the user via a terminal device, to determine the secondary filtering rule corresponding to the second-order operator; or receiving a type selection operation performed by the user on a set of judgement types via a terminal device, to determine a judgement type corresponding to the second-order operator;
(Paragraphs [0068], [0093]. [0100])( Mathur) and (Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0052], [0056], [0063], [0065] and [0071])( Vemulapalli)
receiving a fourth text entry operation and/or a fourth selection operation performed by the user via the terminal device, to determine the secondary filtering rule corresponding to the second-order operator in combined with the judgement types.
(Paragraphs [0068], [0093]. [0100])( Mathur) and (Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0052], [0056], [0063], [0065] and [0071])( Vemulapalli)
As per claim 6, Mathur and Vemulapalli teach:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 5, wherein the receiving a type selection operation performed by the user on a set of judgement types, to determine a judgement type corresponding to the second-order operator, comprises:
displaying the set of judgement types corresponding to data types of the second-order operators via the terminal device; the data type of the second-order operator being: numeric, character, time, or geography;
(Paragraphs [0068], [0093]. [0100])( Mathur) and (Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0052], [0056], [0063], [0065] and [0071])( Vemulapalli)
and receiving a type selection operation performed by the user on one judgement type in the set of judgement types, and taking a judgement type selected by the user as a judgement type corresponding to the second-order operator.
(Paragraphs [0068], [0093]. [0100])( Mathur) and (Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0052], [0056], [0063], [0065] and [0071])( Vemulapalli)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Pedapati et al (hereinafter Pedapati) US Patent No 11768818.
As per claim 9, Mathur does not explicitly teach checking an index formula corresponding to the custom index, to obtain a check result, wherein the check result indicates whether the formula is correct or incorrect, however in analogous art of data management, Pedapati teaches:
checking an index formula corresponding to the custom index, to obtain a check result, wherein the check result indicates whether the formula is correct or incorrect.
(Column 29, lines 1-8 and column 57, lines 33-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Pedapati by incorporating the teaching of Pedapati into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Pedapati into the system of Mathur for the purpose of improving the index effectiveness and data analysis accuracy.
As per claim 10, Mathur and Pedapati teach:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 9, further comprising:
generating a correction prompt information corresponding to the custom index and displaying the correction prompt information on the terminal device when the formula is incorrect.
(Fig. 12 and Column 29, lines 1-8 and column 57, lines 33-64)( Pedapati)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Das et al (hereinafter Das) US Publication No 20090030883.
As per claim 12, Mathur does not explicitly teach a secondary filter, configured to determine at least one second-order operator corresponding to the at least one first-order operator and a secondary filtering rule corresponding to each second-order operator in the at least one second-order operator, however in analogous art of data management, Das teaches:
a secondary filter, configured to determine at least one second-order operator corresponding to the at least one first-order operator and a secondary filtering rule corresponding to each second-order operator in the at least one second-order operator.
(Paragraphs [0028]-[003], [0040] and [0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Das by incorporating the teaching of Das into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Das into the system of Mathur for the purpose of performing efficient queries.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Damodaran et al (hereinafter Damodaran) US Publication No 20210042007.
As per claim 13, Mathur does not explicitly teach a tooltip control, configured to display a prompt information corresponding to the formula edit box when a mouse hover operation is received, however in analogous art of data management, Damodaran teaches:
a tooltip control, configured to display a prompt information corresponding to the formula edit box when a mouse hover operation is received.
(Paragraph [0025])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Damodaran by incorporating the teaching of Damodaran into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Damodaran into the system of Mathur for the purpose of providing detail regarding index structure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of John Hassett (hereinafter Hassett) US Publication No 20180204286.
As per claim 17, Mathur does not explicitly teach importing one or more first-order operators from an index sharing platform however in analogous art of data management, Hassett teaches:
importing one or more first-order operators from an index sharing platform.
(Fig. 1A and Abstract and paragraphs [0013], [0035])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Hassett by incorporating the teaching of Hassett into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Hassett into the system of Mathur for the purpose of managing data processing using common index specification.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Park et al (hereinafter Park) US Publication No 20190158309.
As per claim 18, Mathur does not explicitly teach providing a first chatbot human-computer interface via a terminal device, to receive one or more first input information from a user; and extracting semantics from the one or more first input information, to determine the one or more first-order operators, however in analogous art of data management, Park teaches:
providing a first chatbot human-computer interface via a terminal device, to receive one or more first input information from a user; and extracting semantics from the one or more first input information, to determine the one or more first-order operators.
(Paragraphs [0282] and [0351])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Park by incorporating the teaching of Park into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Park into the system of Mathur for the purpose of determining query intent and improving index generation.
As per claim 19, Mathur teaches:
The method for generating the custom index according to claim 7, wherein the operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators comprise an operation order and one or more operators as follows: arithmetic operator, comparison operator, and logical operator, and the operator order is used for indicating an operational precedence,
(paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0036]-[0040], [0044], [00068], [0078], [0087] and [0136])
Mathur does not explicitly and extracting semantics from each second input information in the one or more second input information, to determine the operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators, however in analogous art of data management, Park teaches:
wherein the determining operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators, comprises:
providing a second chatbot human-computer interface via the terminal device, to receive one or more second input information from the user;
(Paragraphs [0282] and [0351])
and extracting semantics from each second input information in the one or more second input information, to determine the operation rules among the plurality of first-order operators.
(Paragraphs [0282] and [0351])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Park by incorporating the teaching of Park into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Park into the system of Mathur for the purpose of determining query intent and improving index generation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Rivette et al (hereinafter Rivette) US Patent No 7949728.
As per claim 20, Mathur does not explicitly teach performing data processing on a set of to-be-processed data based on the custom index to obtain data analysis result of the set of to-be-processed data, wherein the to-be-processed data comprises patent data, however in analogous art of data management, Rivette teaches:
performing data processing on a set of to-be-processed data based on the custom index to obtain data analysis result of the set of to-be-processed data, wherein the to-be-processed data comprises patent data,
(Fig. 2, 6 and column 29, lines 30-53 and Column 31, lines 58-67 and column 32, lines 1-5 and Column 67, lines 14-36 and Column 91, 25-34)
and the first-order operator comprises at least one of the following: receiving office, applicant, inventor, agency, patent agent, application date, grant date, priority date, application number, publication number, patent abstract, patent title, patent type, patent classification number, citations, number of claims, first claim, patent legal status, international patent classification, patent examiner, patent priority, patent litigation information, patent transfer information, citation count for a patent , backward citation count for a patent, patent family members, patent technology field classification, or patent application field classification.
(Fig. 2, 6 and column 29, lines 30-53 and Column 31, lines 58-67 and column 32, lines 1-5 and Column 67, lines 14-36 and Column 91, 25-34 and Column 98, lines 59-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Mathur and Rivette by incorporating the teaching of Rivette into the method of Mathur. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Rivette into the system of Mathur for the purpose of determining query intent and improving index generation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights