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 .
This Office action is responsive to Preliminary Amendment filed on 04/02/2025.
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
New claims 9-14 have been added.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6-8, the claims recite “acquiring all nodes ranging from a root node of a complete binary tree to any one of leaf nodes, from a server device that has the complete binary tree capable of storing data in each node and randomly storing all data in any leaf node in an initial state; selecting data to be accessed probabilistically from each of the all nodes and deleting the data from the node; probabilistically moving data selected in the selection procedure to any of nodes ranging from the root node to the leaf node out of the all nodes, and probabilistically moving data not selected in the selection procedure to any of nodes ranging from a node storing the data to the leaf node; and replying the all nodes to which data are moved, to the server device in order to reflect the all nodes on the complete binary tree”. The limitations of acquiring, selecting, moving, and replying, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a device to perform the acquiring, selecting, moving, and replying steps. The device in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of moving data selected and moving data not selected) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are 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 device to perform the acquiring, selecting, moving, and replying steps that 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. Thus, the claims 1-14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-6 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites a “data access system, comprising: a server ..…” in lines 1-2. Applicant should note that the term "server" in its plain meaning can be just software (see www.computerlanguage.com). Furthermore, specification does not define the term "server". Therefore, the claimed system directs to software per se, which do not show the physical transformation. Therefore, the claimed "system" would amount to computer programs, a type of functional descriptive material, per se. As such, the claimed system/apparatus must include the hardware necessary to realize any of the functionality of the claimed modules and produce a useful, concrete and tangible result. In absence of recitation of such hardware as part of the claimed apparatus, it is considered non-statutory.
Claims 2-5 and 9-12 depend on claim 1 and also do not incorporate any hardware into independent claim, therefore they are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 1 above.
Claim 6 recites a “client device comprising: acquiring…, selecting…., moving…., and replying….”. Applicant should note that the claimed system/apparatus must include the hardware necessary to realize any of the functionality of the claimed modules and produce a useful, concrete and tangible result. In absence of recitation of such hardware as part of the claimed apparatus, it is considered non-statutory.
Claim 8 recites a “program for causing a computer to execute:.” in line 1. Applicant should note that the program is software. Therefore, it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “node acquisition procedure for”, “selection procedure for”, “moving procedure for”, and “node reply procedure for” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/BAOTRAN N TO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
