DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
3. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 9 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium …”, therefore the claim is a manufacture. Claim 17 recites “A system…” therefore the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations "determining" and specifically “determining a portion of the data warehouse graph that corresponds to the natural language query”, “determine a set of precedent cells from which the cell depends” and “identify a profile of the user”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a "warehouse modeled”, in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, grouping and evaluating data, if the profile exists.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “priming"; based on the context of data portion, and portion corresponding to the natural language query.” And The “inputting” based on a determination of the existence of the input, this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected (or inputted) and analyzed data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, including “priming a large language model with priming context” having just a portion to provide a query this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. The limitations performed by a “context of a query” being a tool.; generates a combination of data based on input data and update them based on comparison of data ( it is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (abstract idea).
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir.2019) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In the context of software patents (which includes machine learning patents), the step-one inquiry determines “whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
As per Claims 2-20, being independent and dependent claims corresponding to the method claim 1, respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1.
The Examiner suggests that the terminology of the claim language specifically the "determining", "identifying" and the "receiving", furthermore how the “priming” is performed; further elaborating and describing how the mentioned functionality in the claim language is accomplished. "in order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a clam, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations"
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12332931.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1- 20 of the cited US 12332931for generating hexadecimal trees to compare files. The claim merely omits certain bolded limitations as shown in comparison table below, and replace them with .
Claim 1 (instant application)
Claim 1 (US 12332931)
1. A method comprising: receiving a natural language query from a user into a cell of a notebook environment, the natural language query performed with respect to a data warehouse, the data warehouse modeled in a data warehouse graph; in response to receiving the natural language query: determining
a set of precedent cells from which the cell depends;
and identifying a profile of the user;
determining a portion of the data warehouse graph that corresponds to the natural language query;
priming a large language model with priming context, the priming context based on the portion of the data warehouse graph that corresponds to the natural language query, the precedent cells from which the cell depends, and the profile of the user, the priming resulting in a primed large language model; inputting the natural language query into the primed large language model;
and providing a response to the natural language query to the user.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the data warehouse is modeled by: generating a column node for each column of each table within the data warehouse; and generating edges between column nodes that are mutually queried.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein column nodes are mutually queried when they are called together by a cell.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein column nodes are mutually queried when they are together part of a join command.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the edges between the column nodes indicate information about how they were mutually queried.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the information is pointed to by one or more nodes of a user graph structure for given users that performed an act in which the column nodes were mutually queried.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of precedent cells from which the cell depends comprises determining values from the set of precedent cells using a sequential ordering dictated by directed edges of a notebook graph structure.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the profile of the user comprises determining historical queries in historical projects performed by the user that relate to the natural language query.
1. A method comprising: receiving a natural language query from a user into a cell of a notebook environment, the natural language query performed with respect to a data warehouse, the data warehouse modeled in a data warehouse graph; in response to receiving the natural language query: determining,
using directed edges of a notebook graph structure,
a set of precedent cells from which the cell depends, the notebook graph structure being a directed acyclic graph;
and determining, using edges of a user graph structure populated based on activities of users relative to the notebook environment, a profile of the user;
determining a portion of the data warehouse graph that corresponds to the natural language query;
priming a large language model with priming context, the priming context based on the portion of the data warehouse graph that corresponds to the natural language query, the precedent cells from which the cell depends, and the profile of the user, the priming resulting in a primed large language model; inputting the natural language query into the primed large language model;
receiving, as output from the large language model, a response to the natural language query; and providing the response to the natural language query to the user.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the data warehouse is modeled by: generating a column node for each column of each table within the data warehouse; and generating edges between column nodes that are mutually queried.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein column nodes are mutually queried when they are called together by a cell.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein column nodes are mutually queried when they are together part of a join command.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the edges between the column nodes indicate information about how they were mutually queried.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the information is pointed to by one or more nodes of the user graph structure for given users that performed an act in which the column nodes were mutually queried.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of precedent cells from which the cell depends comprises determining values from the set of precedent cells using a sequential ordering dictated by directed edges of the notebook graph structure.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the profile of the user comprises determining historical queries in historical projects performed by the user that relate to the natural language query.
Table 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting or omitting in this case “using directed edges of a notebook graph structure, a set of precedent cells from which the cell depends, the notebook graph structure being a directed acyclic graph; and determining, using edges of a user graph structure populated based on activities of users relative to the notebook environment” since an omission and addition of a cited limitation would have not changed the process according to which the method and system as claimed.
Therefore, the use of having a directed acyclic graph and using the edges relating to user activities would be an obvious variation in the art for the purpose of achieving the same end results having the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function.
The dependent and independent claims 9-20 are rejected for fully incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 USC § 101 and double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ananthanarayanan; Ganesh; US-12393618-B2, relates to first context profile for the query using language of the query and a context database (or domain database). The first context profile may include first context content based on the language of the query. Using the first context profile, a context generation system may generate a first prompt for the foundation model.
Johnsen; Bjørn Dag; US-20190068401-A1, relates to SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SUPPORTING HETEROGENEOUS AND ASYMMETRIC DUAL RAIL FABRIC CONFIGURATIONS IN A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 March 7, 2026