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 .
Status
This instant application No. 19/246,665 has claims 1-20 pending.
Priority / Filing Date
Applicant’s claim for priority of parent application No. 18/430,402 (now Pat. No. US 12380167) is acknowledged. The effective filing date of this application is February 1, 2024.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Drawings
The drawings received on June 23, 2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of Pat. No. US 12380167.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application recite similar limitations and claims 1-20 of ‘167 as being compared in the table below. For the purpose of illustration, only claims 3-13 (method claims) of the instant application are compared to the claims of the patent (underlining are used to indicate conflict limitations). The remaining claims of the instant application recite different categories (i.e., system and medium claims) and are therefore not compared for simplicity purposes.
Instant Application
Pat. No. US 12380167
Claim 3
A method comprising:
subsequent to storing, (i) a first set of results received during a user session and (ii) a first output generated based on the first set of results, in a session cache in connection with a first user request, receiving a second user request during the user session;
in response to determining that a second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to a first request parameter of the first user request but fails to satisfy a match criterion:
retrieving, from the session cache, a matching result subset of the first set of results, in lieu of retrieving the first output, wherein the matching result subset does not include a result corresponding to the first request parameter, and wherein it is determined that the second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to the first request parameter of the first user request but fails to satisfy the match criterion; and
generating a second output based on (i) the matching result subset of the first set of results and (ii) a second result received in connection with the second user request.
Claim 3
A method comprising:
receiving a first set of results during a user session in connection with a first query;
storing (i) the first set of results received during the user session in a session cache associated with the user session and (ii) a first output generated from the first set of results in the session cache associated with the user session;
subsequent to storing the first set of results, receiving a second query during the user session;
in response to determining that a second query parameter of the second query corresponds to a first query parameter of the first query but fails to satisfy a match criterion:
performing a cache lookup on the session cache to retrieve a matching result subset of the first set of results, in lieu of retrieving the first output generated from the first set of results, wherein the matching result subset does not include a result corresponding to the first query parameter, and wherein it is determined that the second query parameter of the second query corresponds to the first query parameter of the first query but fails to satisfy the match criterion; and
generating a second output based on (i) the matching result subset of the first set of results and (ii) a second result received in connection with the second query.
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to determining that the second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to the first request parameter of the first user request and satisfies the match criterion:
retrieving, from the session cache, the first output based on the first set of results, in lieu of generating the second output, wherein it is determined that the second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to the first request parameter of the first user request and satisfies the match criterion.
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to determining that the second query parameter of the second query corresponds to the first query parameter of the first query and satisfies the match criterion:
performing a second cache lookup on the session cache to retrieve the first output generated from the first set of results, in lieu of generating the second output based on the first set of results, wherein it is determined that the second query parameter of the second query corresponds to the first query parameter of the first query and satisfies the match criterion.
Claim 5
The method of claim 3, wherein determining that the second request parameter of the second user request fails to satisfy the match criterion further comprises:
accessing a configuration profile indicating matching criteria that indicates whether to cache user request results associated with request parameters;
determining, based on the access of the configuration profile, that the second request parameter corresponds to a matching criterion indicating to not cache user request results associated with the second request parameter; and
in response to determining that the second request parameter corresponds to the matching criteria indicating to not cache the user request results associated with the second request parameter, determining that the second request parameter of the second user request fails to satisfy the match criterion.
Claim 5
The method of claim 3, wherein determining that the second query parameter of the second query fails to satisfy the match criterion further comprises:
accessing a configuration profile indicating matching criteria that indicates whether to cache query results associated with query parameters;
determining, based on the access of the configuration profile, that the second query parameter corresponds to a matching criterion indicating to not cache query results associated with the second query parameter; and
in response to determining that the second query parameter corresponds to the matching criteria indicating to not cache the query results associated with the second query parameter, determining that the second query parameter of the second query fails to satisfy the match criterion.
Claim 6
The method of claim 3, wherein determining that the second request parameter of the second user request fails to satisfy the match criterion further comprises:
providing the second request parameter to a machine learning model configured to output information indicating whether user request parameters satisfy matching criteria; and
receiving, based on the providing of the second request parameter to the machine learning model, a first result indicating that the second request parameter fails to satisfy the match criterion.
Claim 6
The method of claim 3, wherein determining that the second query parameter of the second query fails to satisfy the match criterion further comprises:
providing the second query parameter to a machine learning model configured to output a result indicating whether query parameters satisfy matching criteria; and
receiving, based on the providing of the second query parameter to the machine learning model, a first result indicating that the second query parameter fails to satisfy the match criterion.
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
obtaining training data for the machine learning model, wherein the training data comprises (i) historical request parameters and (ii) historical matching criteria indicating whether to cache user request results associated with the historical request parameters; and
providing the training data to the machine learning model during a training routine to train the machine learning model.
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
obtaining training data for the machine learning model, wherein the training data comprises (i) historical query parameters and (ii) historical matching criteria indicating whether to cache query results associated with the historical query parameters; and
providing the training data to the machine learning model during a training routine to train the machine learning model.
Claim 8
The method of claim 3, wherein generating the second output further comprises:
providing the second request parameter to an application programming interface (API) during the user session;
receiving the second result from the API in response to providing the second request parameter to the API;
extracting one or more values associated with (i) the matching result subset of the first set of results and (ii) the second result; and
providing the one or more extracted values to a second output function to generate the second output.
Claim 8
The method of claim 3, wherein generating the second output further comprises:
providing the second query parameter to an application programming interface (API) during the user session;
receiving the second result from the API in response to providing the second query parameter to the API;
extracting one or more values associated with (i) the matching result subset of the first set of results and (ii) the second result; and
providing the one or more extracted values to a second output function to generate the second output.
Claim 9
The method of claim 3, wherein the first set of results are received in response to providing one or more APIs the first user request.
Claim 9
The method of claim 3, wherein the first set of results are received in response to providing one or more APIs the first query.
Claim 10
The method of claim 3, wherein subsequent to determining that the second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to the first request parameter of the first user request but fails to satisfy the match criterion, the method further comprises:
preventing storage of the second result received in connection with the second user request during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 10
The method of claim 3, wherein subsequent to determining that the second query parameter of the second query corresponds to the first query parameter of the first query but fails to satisfy the match criterion, the method further comprises:
preventing storage of the second result received in connection with the second query during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 11
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
preventing storage of the second output during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 11
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
preventing storage of the second output during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 12
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
subsequent to determining that the second request parameter of the second user request corresponds to the first request parameter of the first user request and satisfies the match criterion, storing the second result received in connection with the second user request during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 12
The method of claim 3, wherein subsequent to determining that the second query parameter of the second query corresponds to the first query parameter of the first query and satisfies the match criterion, the method further comprises:
storing the second result received in connection with the second query during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 13
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
storing the second output during the user session in the session cache.
Claim 13
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
storing the second output during the user session in the session cache.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the elements of claims 1-20 of ‘167 with any combination of the cited references below to arrive at claims 1-20 of the instant application for the purpose of reducing usage of cache memory in connection with user queries. Further, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of ‘167 to arrive at claims 1-20 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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.
The claimed invention in claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis since each claim is either directed to a system comprising one or more processors (i.e., hardware components per [0069] of instant specification and as known in the art), a method, or one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
Claims 1, 3, and 14 recite each, in part, elements that are directed to an abstract idea (“Courts 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)). Each claim recites the limitations of storing, comparing, and selectively retrieving information based on rules. Specifically, the claims recite the following limitations that fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of the abstract ideas:
Receiving and storing initial data: receiving an initial set of results… storing (i) the initial set… and (ii) a first output (claim 1); storing, (i) a first set of results… and (ii) a first output (claims 3, and 14).
Receiving subsequent data and performing a comparison: receiving a subsequent user request… determining that a subsequent request parameter…corresponds to an initial request parameter…but fails to match (claim 1); receiving a second user request… determining that a second request parameter… fails to satisfy a match criterion (claims 3, and 14).
Applying a rule to selectively retrieve data: retrieving…a matching result subset…in lieu of retrieving the first output (claims 1, 3, and 14).
Generating a new output: generating a second output based on (i) the matching result subset… and (ii) a subsequent result (claims 1, 3, and 14).
The above limitations describe a process of comparing new requests against old requests and retrieving only the unmodified portions of the old request. This is a concept that is implementable in a human mind or by a human organizing information per step 2A – prong 1 of the Abstract Idea Analysis (e.g., a file clerk who receives a revised document request, compares the new criteria against the old criteria, determines that only one parameter changed, and retrieves only the specific unchanged files from a filing cabinet rather than retrieving the entire previous portfolio).
Under step 2A – prong 2 of the analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there is no improvement being recited to the functioning of a computer or computer network itself. Instead, the claims are drafted at a high level of functional generality. They recite using generic computer components (i.e., one or more processors, computer program instructions, and a generic session cache) to perform the abstract data retrieval process. The claims do not recite how the parameters are matched, how the memory is structurally managed or how the subset is physically extracted to improve the computer. The claims merely use the computer and its cache as generic tools to execute the abstract logic of selective data retrieval faster and more efficiently than a human could. This does not constitute a practical application.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Individually, the physical elements recites (i.e., processors, computer-readable media, cache memory) are well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) computer components. Storing data in cache and retrieving it are routing computer functions. The ordered combination of these generic elements simply instructs a practitioner to apply the abstract idea (e.g., comparing parameters and pulling a subset of data instead of all the data) using a generic computing environment. The claims lack a specific, unconventional technological implementation that transforms the nature of each claim into a patent-eligible application.
Claims 2, 4, and 15 recite in each claim retrieving the first output if the parameter fully matches. These claims merely append basic logical condition (IF match = true, THEN retrieve/store; IF match = false, THEN do not store) to the abstract idea. Controlling the logical output of an abstract mental comparison (e.g., whether to save a piece of paper or throw it away) does not change the abstract nature of the claim. Furthermore, executing these basic conditional statements on a generic session cache utilizes WURC computing functions. These steps merely recite the abstract idea being executing by a generic computer. They do not recite a specific and unconventional technological improvement to the cache hardware itself. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 5, and 16 recite in each claim accessing a configuration profile indicating matching criteria to determine whether to cache the results and determining a failure based on a not cache criterion. These claims merely recite a source for the abstract rules (i.e., the configuration profile) wherein storing a list of administrative rules in a file and reading that file constitutes insignificant data gathering activity. The claims merely use a generic computer file to store the mental rules of what should and should not be saved. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 6-7, and 17 recite providing the parameter to a machine learning model configured to output information indicating whether…parameters satisfy matching criteria and receiving the result (claims 6, and 17) and obtaining training data and training the model (claim 7). Reciting the use of a generic machine learning model to perform the abstract step of evaluating a matching criterion does not confer eligibility. The claims treat the machine learning model as a computational tool to execute the abstract idea without reciting a specific and unconventional structure of a neural network / training algorithm or an improvement to the functioning of ML technology itself. Simply training a generic algorithmic model on historical data to automate an abstract mental process (e.g., predicting if a rule is satisfied) is a WURC application of ML that fails to provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 8, and 9 recite providing parameters to an API, receiving results from the API, extracting values, and providing extracted values to an output function. Interfacing with a remote server via an API is WURC activity in network computing. Sending data to an API and receiving data back constitutes insignificant extra-solution data gathering. Furthermore, extracting values and passing them to a generic output function is a classic post-solution activity. These claims merely detail the WURC mechanics of how data is passed around a network to execute the abstract idea. They fail to provide an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 10-11, and 18 recite in each claim preventing storage of the results or outputs if the parameter fails the match criterion. The claims recite similar basic logical condition(s) to the abstract idea presented in claims 2, 4, and 15. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 12-13, and 19-20 recite in each claim storing the results or outputs if the parameter satisfies the match criterion. The claims recite similar basic logical condition(s) to the abstract idea presented in claims 2, 4, and 15. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art given that the above pending rejections being resolved.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are considered relevant to the claims:
Harward et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0271557) teaches the dependencies of a received query can be determined by submitting a version of the received query to the database through a native facility provided by the database to analyze how query structures are processed. The caching system can access the results of the facility to determine the tables, rows, or other partitions of data a received query is dependent upon or modifies. A component can be implemented at or on the system of the database to directly detect changes to the database data. This component can monitor transactional information maintained by the database itself to determine when changes to the database occur. This component can communicate with the cache to provide notification of changes to the database.
Hunter et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0088919) teaches a first transformed sub-query or sub-operation, when executed, causes the at least part of the data structure to be stored separately from a results cache that is used during execution to cache results for the query. The data structure may be retained in storage until after the at least part of the data structure has been used for other transformed sub-queries. Although the query processor makes a determination at compile time, the query processor stores the data structure into the results cache. The results cache normally holds results that have already been calculated. The query processor instructs the execution engine to write a data structure to the results cache before the query has been executed, and to keep the written data structure in the results cache until the sub-queries or sub-operations that reference the data structure have been executed.
Rockwood (Pat. No. US 7849185) teaches a correlation engine caches results of multiple subqueries in a correlation results table. Consequently, the next time an operator submits a particular query comprising either one of the multiple subqueries, correlation engine may use correlation results table to determine the results of subqueries for detected events received prior to correlation update time. By caching results in correlation results table, the system may reduce the processing time for executing the multiple subqueries the next time they are submitted by the operator.
Sarapuk et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0364222) teaches a temporary materialized view uses a temporary table for result set storage. A global temporary table is populated whenever a select query on a candidate view associated with a temporary materialized view is executed. The result set is stored in the global temporary table only while the current session is active. Subsequent query references to the candidate view during the session are replaced with references to the associated temporary materialized view in order to access the cached result set during query execution. Since the cached result set persists until the end of a session, the result set can be re-used to answer multiple queries within the same session.
Laurence et al. (Pat. No. US 10664508) teaches a filtering results cache at an object storage service. The results of one or more filtered access requests (FARs) may be stored temporarily in a cache, and the cached results may potentially be used to respond to subsequent access requests. The set of formatted records extracted in response to a particular FAR from one or more UDIs may be cached. The particular fields that were specified for retrieval in the FAR may be cached. If the FAR requests an output transformation, such as a conversion from CSV to JSON, the formatted output may be cached.
Sachindran et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0086489) teaches pre-fetching search results. First input is received from a search session of a user device, where the first input includes at least a portion of a search term but does not initiate a search. Implementations determine context data associated with the first input, determine that a combination of the first input and the context data satisfies a pre-fetch threshold, determine intent data based on at least a portion of the context data, generate a search query based on the first input and the intent data, and pre-fetch a first subset of search results based on the search query. In response to a second input received subsequent to the first input, where the second input contains an initiate search signal, implementations initiate rendering of the pre-fetched first subset of search results in the search session at the user device.
Beaudreau et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0287175) teaches a search query is received from a user via a search engine. The user's search query includes one or more search terms that correspond to the search topic for which search results were obtained. One or more user-context data may also be provided with the user's search query. One or more additional search queries are compiled using the user-context information and additional search results obtained therefrom. The user-context data is also useable as an aid in determining the confidence level of a search result. The additional search queries are executed at runtime or may be cached in a computer memory. The user-context data is also useable to inform the model's organization of the search results.
Edlund et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0010965) teaches managing a query result set in response to a search, including: generating a user request corresponding with a portion of the query result set, responsive to the portion of the query result set being resident on a client cache, returning the portion of the query result set corresponding with the user request to a client table, responsive to the user request not having been sent to an application server, adding the user request to an inflight queue, sending the user request to the application server, returning the portion of the query result set corresponding with the user request to the client cache, and returning the portion of the query result set corresponding with the user request to the client table, and responsive to the user request having been sent to the application server, adding the user request to a blocked cache queue.
Ozbutun (Pub. No. US 2005/0240570) teaches when searching for a results set of a plan operator, if a cached results set for a different plan operator is found that is similar, the results set of the similar operation may be used instead of executing the actual operation. The cached results set found is used "as is", without further modification or the cached results set found is further filtered to remove some or all of the extra data in the cached results set. The cached results set or the signature of the cached results set is evaluated to determine whether the user is likely to mind receiving the difference between the results requested and cached results set found.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Son Hoang whose telephone number is (571) 270-1752. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday (7:00 AM – 4:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached on (571) 272-9782. 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.
/SON T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights