DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 15 are amended.
No claims are added.
No claims are canceled.
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2024/103503 07/04/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that “amended Claim 1 provides a specific technical tool to optimize database storage and query efficiency through the specific “direct reference,” “logical reference,” and “multi – level reference parsing” technologies,” going beyond mere mental processes or abstract ideas,” (remarks, pages 8 – 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant argues newly amended claim limitations.
Specifically, applicant argues that amended Claim 1 solves the problem of how to achieve efficient integration and querying across heterogeneous data sources without increasing additional storage burden.
Examiner points to the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis of does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “generating, for any one of the physical data tables, based on the attribute information, a virtual data table corresponding to the physical data table; wherein the virtual data table and the physical data table have a same data structure, and each data in the virtual data table directly references corresponding data in a non – duplicative manner to share storage space of the physical data table;” and “in response to a data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, parsing the direct references and the logical references to determine target data corresponding to the data query instruction from the physical data tables based on the virtual data wide table” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Along the same lines, applicant argues that the “parsing process is an operation unique to computer systems when processing hierarchical data architectures and is not a mental process that can be performed by the human mind,” (remarks, page 9).
The courts examined parsing as an example, in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53
Accordingly, Examiner maintains her previous ground of rejection, and this Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and/or math without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim recites:
acquiring attribute information of a plurality of physical data tables;
generating, for any one of the physical data tables, based on the attribute information, a virtual data table corresponding to the physical data table; wherein the virtual data table and the physical data table have a same data structure, and each data in the virtual data table directly references corresponding data in a non – duplicative manner to share storage space of the physical data table;
associating a plurality of target virtual data tables in the virtual data tables to generate a virtual data wide table corresponding to the target virtual data tables, wherein each data in the virtual data wide table logically references corresponding data in the target virtual data tables; and
in response to a data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, parsing the direct references and the logical references to determine target data corresponding to the data query instruction from the physical data tables based on the virtual data wide table.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1, 8, and 15 limitations of “acquiring…” and “associating” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
MENTAL PROCESSES MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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 (2012) ("‘[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).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
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 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “generating, for any one of the physical data tables, based on the attribute information, a virtual data table corresponding to the physical data table; wherein the virtual data table and the physical data table have a same data structure, and each data in the virtual data table directly references corresponding data in a non – duplicative manner to share storage space of the physical data table;” and “in response to a data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, parsing the direct references and the logical references to determine target data corresponding to the data query instruction from the physical data tables based on the virtual data wide table” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application 2106.04(d)
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); [AltContent: rect]
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT MPEP 2106.05(I)
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); 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"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As to claim 2, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the associating the plurality of target virtual data tables in the virtual data tables to generate the virtual data wide table corresponding to the target virtual data tables comprises: selecting a reference data table from the target virtual data tables; selecting an association data table from remaining target virtual data tables; associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain a new reference data table; and repeating steps of selecting the association data table and associating the reference data table with the association data table until a number of the remaining target virtual data tables is zero (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 3, the claim recites wherein the associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain the new reference data table comprises: selecting, based on attribute information of the reference data table and the association data table, a target association mode from a plurality of association modes; and associating the reference data table with the association data table by using the target association mode to obtain the new reference data table (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 4, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the target virtual data tables are screened out from the virtual data tables by: acquiring at least one predetermined query statement of a target query service; and determining, based on the at least one predetermined query statement, the target virtual data table matching the at least one predetermined query statement (A person can mentally find a data table that matches a condition).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 5, the claim recites the mental process wherein the determining, in response to the data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, the target data corresponding to the data query instruction based on the virtual data wide table comprises: determining, in response to the data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, a data query path corresponding to the data query instruction, based on a data reference relationship indicated in the virtual data wide table; searching for target query data matching any one of query nodes in the data query path from currently stored intermediate query data; wherein the query nodes indicate data query logic for determining the intermediate query data; and in response to any one of the target query data being found, performing, starting from the query node corresponding to the target query data, data query according to the data query path based on the target query data, to obtain the target data corresponding to the data query instruction (A person can mentally perform a query).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 6, the claim recites the mental processes whereby after searching for the target query data corresponding to any one of the query nodes in the data query path, the data query method further comprises: in response to none of the target query data being found, performing, starting from an initial query node of the data query path, the data query according to the data query path, to obtain the target data corresponding to the data query instruction (A person can mentally search for data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 7, the claim recites the mental processes of performing the data query according to the data query path, for each of the query nodes, determining, based on at least one of a predicted query frequency, a historical query frequency and a calculation complexity corresponding to the query node, an importance evaluation value of the query node; and storing, in response to the importance evaluation value being higher than or equal to a predetermined evaluation value, the intermediate query data corresponding to the query node (A person can mentally search for data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data specifically in the claim, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 9, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the associating the plurality of target virtual data tables in the virtual data tables to generate the virtual data wide table corresponding to the target virtual data tables comprises: selecting a reference data table from the target virtual data tables; selecting an association data table from remaining target virtual data tables; associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain a new reference data table; and repeating steps of selecting the association data table and associating the reference data table with the association data table until a number of the remaining target virtual data tables is zero (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 10, the claim recites wherein the associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain the new reference data table comprises: selecting, based on attribute information of the reference data table and the association data table, a target association mode from a plurality of association modes; and associating the reference data table with the association data table by using the target association mode to obtain the new reference data table (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 11, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the target virtual data tables are screened out from the virtual data tables by: acquiring at least one predetermined query statement of a target query service; and determining, based on the at least one predetermined query statement, the target virtual data table matching the at least one predetermined query statement (A person can mentally find a data table that matches a condition).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 12, the claim recites the mental process wherein the determining, in response to the data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, the target data corresponding to the data query instruction based on the virtual data wide table comprises: determining, in response to the data query instruction for the virtual data wide table, a data query path corresponding to the data query instruction, based on a data reference relationship indicated in the virtual data wide table; searching for target query data matching any one of query nodes in the data query path from currently stored intermediate query data; wherein the query nodes indicate data query logic for determining the intermediate query data; and in response to any one of the target query data being found, performing, starting from the query node corresponding to the target query data, data query according to the data query path based on the target query data, to obtain the target data corresponding to the data query instruction (A person can mentally perform a query).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 13, the claim recites the mental processes whereby after searching for the target query data corresponding to any one of the query nodes in the data query path, the data query method further comprises: in response to none of the target query data being found, performing, starting from an initial query node of the data query path, the data query according to the data query path, to obtain the target data corresponding to the data query instruction (A person can mentally search for data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 14, the claim recites the mental processes of performing the data query according to the data query path, for each of the query nodes, determining, based on at least one of a predicted query frequency, a historical query frequency and a calculation complexity corresponding to the query node, an importance evaluation value of the query node; and storing, in response to the importance evaluation value being higher than or equal to a predetermined evaluation value, the intermediate query data corresponding to the query node (A person can mentally search for data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data specifically in the claim, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 16, the claim recites the mental processes of performing the data query according to the data query path, for each of the query nodes, determining, based on at least one of a predicted query frequency, a historical query frequency and a calculation complexity corresponding to the query node, an importance evaluation value of the query node; and storing, in response to the importance evaluation value being higher than or equal to a predetermined evaluation value, the intermediate query data corresponding to the query node (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 17, the claim recites the mental processes of performing the data query according to the data query path, for each of the query nodes, determining, based on at least one of a predicted query frequency, a historical query frequency and a calculation complexity corresponding to the query node, an importance evaluation value of the query node; and storing, in response to the importance evaluation value being higher than or equal to a predetermined evaluation value, the intermediate query data corresponding to the query node (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 18, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the associating the plurality of target virtual data tables in the virtual data tables to generate the virtual data wide table corresponding to the target virtual data tables comprises: selecting a reference data table from the target virtual data tables; selecting an association data table from remaining target virtual data tables; associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain a new reference data table; and repeating steps of selecting the association data table and associating the reference data table with the association data table until a number of the remaining target virtual data tables is zero (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
As to claim 19, the claim recites wherein the associating the reference data table with the association data table to obtain the new reference data table comprises: selecting, based on attribute information of the reference data table and the association data table, a target association mode from a plurality of association modes; and associating the reference data table with the association data table by using the target association mode to obtain the new reference data table (A person can mentally associate data).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 20, the claim recites the mental processes wherein the target virtual data tables are screened out from the virtual data tables by: acquiring at least one predetermined query statement of a target query service; and determining, based on the at least one predetermined query statement, the target virtual data table matching the at least one predetermined query statement (A person can mentally find a data table that matches a condition).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the data, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more processors” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights