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 of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
Claim Objection
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 17, the limitation “(actual value in result drives selection of data type of extra info).” needs to be removed from the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;
determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query; and
concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a query” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a query” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;” encompasses mentally a person determining based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type.
Next, “determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query;” encompasses mentally a person determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query.
Next, “concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.” encompasses mentally a person concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites receiving a first query from a user;
executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;
Next, “receiving a first query from a user;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere querying data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “recites receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the claim recites “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “recites receiving a first query from a user;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “The method of claim 1, wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 1, wherein the second data type is selected based on a particular value included in the query result.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on at least one of the query result and characteristics of the user: selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result;” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Next, “wherein the template comprises the second data type, and wherein selecting the template comprises selecting the second data type.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving user input comprising a request for a dataset corresponding to a third data type;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type.
Next, “and concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a training dataset comprising the first data type and the second data type;” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 8-14 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 8 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;
determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query;
concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a query” and “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a query” and “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;” encompasses mentally a person determining based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type.
Next, “determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query;” encompasses mentally a person determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query.
Next, “concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.” encompasses mentally a person concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites receiving a first query from a user;
executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;
Next, “receiving a first query from a user;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 8 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere querying data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “recites receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the claim recites “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving a first query from a user;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the second data type is selected based on a particular value included in the query result.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on a particular value included in the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: based on at least one of the query result and characteristics of the user: selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result;“ of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Next, “wherein the template comprises the second data type, and wherein selecting the template comprises selecting the second data type.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving user input comprising a request for a dataset corresponding to a third data type;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type.
Next, “and concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a training dataset comprising the first data type and the second data type;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 8, wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 15-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 15 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 15 recites a system comprising:
receiving a first query from a user;
executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;
based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;
determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query; and
concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “the system”, “a query”, and “at least one device including a hardware processor;” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “the system”, “a query”, and “at least one device including a hardware processor;” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type;” encompasses mentally a person determining based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type.
Next, “determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query;” encompasses mentally a person determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query.
Next, “concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.” encompasses mentally a person concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites at least one device including a hardware processor;
the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first query from a user;
executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;
Here, “at least one device including a hardware processor;
the system being configured to perform operations comprising:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “receiving a first query from a user;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 15 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere querying data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the claim recites “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the claim recites receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving a first query from a user;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving a first query from a user;” and “executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type;” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “The system of claim 15, wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 15, wherein the second data type is selected based on a particular value included in the query result. (actual value in result drives selection of data type of extra info).” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: based on at least one of the query result and characteristics of the user: selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result;“ of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Next, “wherein the template comprises the second data type, and wherein selecting the template comprises selecting the second data type.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving user input comprising a request for a dataset corresponding to a third data type;” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type;” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type.
Next, “and concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a training dataset comprising the first data type and the second data type;” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type.” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of: receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. U.S. Patent (2021/0342541; hereinafter: Taylor) in view of Chen et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2026/0154445; hereinafter: Chen)
Claims 1, 8, and 15
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Taylor discloses a system comprising:
at least one device including a hardware processor (paragraph[0042], the reference describes using a computer device and processor.);
the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first query from a user (Figure 11, paragraph[0237], the reference describes receiving a user query.) ;
executing the first query to generate a query result corresponding to a first data type (Figure 237], the reference describes the query provides results of document and data entity tags (i.e., a first data type, as claimed).);
based on at least one of the query result or characteristics of the user, selecting a second data type that is different than the first data type (paragraph[0235], the reference describes the system bring in a second set of data entity tags (i.e., a second data type, as claimed).);
Taylor does not appear to explicitly disclose
determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query; and
concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type.
However, Chen discloses determining a set of one or more values, corresponding to the second data type, that are not responsive to the first query (paragraph[0050], the reference describes having data types correspond to different data types and the system pulling the data from multiple sources.); and
concurrently presenting the query result corresponding to the first data type and the set of one or more values corresponding to the second data type (paragraph[0058]-paragraph[0059], the reference describes showing the results of a first data types and values from a second data type on user interface.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen to provide different data types on an interface which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen to efficiently access data from multiple sources (Chen: paragraph[0003]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Taylor and Chen discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, and Taylor further disclose wherein the second data type is selected based on the first data type corresponding to the query result (Figure 11, paragraph[0235], the reference describes the second data type is based on the first query results.).
Claims 3, 10, and 17
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Taylor and Chen discloses all the elements in claim 15, as noted above, and Taylor further disclose wherein the second data type is selected based on a particular value included in the query result. (actual value in result drives selection of data type of extra info) (paragraph[0235], the reference describes the user selecting the second data entity as tag in the query results.).
Claims 6, 13, and 20
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Taylor and Chen discloses all the elements in claim 15, as noted above, and Taylor further disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
obtaining a training dataset comprising the first data type and the second data type (paragraph[0190], the reference describes using train including data type to feed to an model.);
based on the training dataset, training an ML model to select the second data type in response to at least one of:
receiving a request for data corresponding to the first data type, or detecting query results corresponding to the first data type, wherein the selecting the second data type comprises applying the ML model to the first data type for the ML model to output the second data type (paragraph[0246], the reference describes using the trained model to predict phrases and words shown as data type tags.).
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. U.S. Patent (2021/0342541; hereinafter: Taylor) in view of Chen et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2026/0154445; hereinafter: Chen) and further in view of Masarie, JR et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2003/0115083; hereinafter: Masarie)
Claims 4, 11, and 18
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Taylor and Chen discloses all the elements in claim 15, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
based on at least one of the query result and characteristics of the user:
selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result;
wherein the template comprises the second data type, and wherein selecting the template comprises selecting the second data type.
However, Masarie discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
based on at least one of the query result and characteristics of the user:
selecting a template of a plurality of templates for displaying the query result (paragraph[0008], the reference describes creating a template based on data type to display results.);
wherein the template comprises the second data type, and wherein selecting the template comprises selecting the second data type (paragraph[0008]-paragraph[0009], the reference describes the template is based on the data type (i.e., the second data type, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the data type is the same as Chen.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen and Masarie to provide a template for different data types which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen and Masarie to efficiently provide for the reconfiguration, customization, implementation, and use of a variety of medical record templates (Masarie: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 5, 12, and 19
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Taylor, Chen, and Masarie discloses all the elements in claim 18, as noted above, and Taylor further disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving user input comprising a request for a dataset corresponding to a third data type (Figures 11-12, paragraph[0233], the reference describes doing new searches using the interface or picking different tags from the results.);
responsive to receiving the user input, selecting a fourth data type based on the dataset and/or the third data type (paragraph[00234], the reference describes the user selecting different data types based the results (i.e., fourth and third data types, as claimed); and
concurrently displaying the dataset corresponding to the third data type and at least one value corresponding to the fourth data type (paragraph[0235], the reference describes displaying the data types on the interface.).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. U.S. Patent (2021/0342541; hereinafter: Taylor) in view of Chen et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2026/015445; hereinafter: Chen) and further in view of Bellegarda et al. U.S. Patent Publication (11,010,550; hereinafter: Bellegarda)
Claims 7 and 14
As to claims 7 and 14, the combination of Taylor and Chen discloses all the elements in claim 15, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type.
However, Bellegarda discloses wherein selecting the second data type comprises executing a query to determine that values of the second data type influence values of the first data type (column 42, lines 5-22, the reference describes using an relative influence of the values (i.e., data type influence values, as claimed) to determine connections because data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen and Bellegarda to determine an influence value from data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Taylor with the teachings of Chen and Bellegarda to efficiently provide a single mechanism that simultaneously provides prediction, auto-completion, and auto-correction (Bellegarda: column 1, liens 36-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights