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 .
Priority
This application claims foreign priority to GB2503922.3 filed 18 March 2025
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person reviewing a list of access events to determine an access frequency. The person can then identify a process for updating the data based on the access frequency being twice the update frequency. The person can then update the data on paper in a table. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites no additional elements to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites a system, comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising: determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person reviewing a list of access events to determine an access frequency. The person can then identify a process for updating the data based on the access frequency being twice the update frequency. The person can then update the data on paper in a table. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor set, one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of determining and updating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor set, one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of determining and updating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising: determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length; and updating the data element from a data source according to a refresh pattern determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person reviewing a list of access events to determine an access frequency. The person can then identify a process for updating the data based on the access frequency being twice the update frequency. The person can then update the data on paper in a table. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of determining and updating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of determining and updating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17 and 18 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 11, 16 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional elements of each of the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2021/0232596 to Qi et al (hereafter Qi).
Referring to claim 1, Qi discloses a method, comprising:
determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length [predetermined time period] (see [0039]; [0041]; [0042] – The intelligent sync module is configured to execute processing to generate a synchronization interval classification prediction as well as manage a state of contextual data, which is usable to generate a synchronization interval prediction. In response to receipt of the query, the intelligent sync module acts as an interface to obtain contextual data including access data to specific content. The historical device usage data provides logged records of access to content.); and
updating the data element [content] from a data source [data storage of the client] according to a refresh pattern [synchronization interval] determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency (see [0046]; [0047] – AI processing is applied, via one or more distributed computing components that may analyze contextual data and generate a synchronization interval classification prediction for synchronizing content during the user session. The synchronization interval classification prediction is then used to determine a synchronization interval for synchronizing content between the client and the distributed data storage. During the user session, content may be synchronized between data storage of the client 202 and the distributed data storage 206 based on the synchronization interval.).
Referring to claim 2, Qi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a new reference time window starts at an end of the reference time window (see [0042]).
Referring to claim 3, Qi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a new reference time window starts each time the data element is accessed (see [0042]).
Referring to claim 4, Qi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, for the data element, access events in new reference time windows (see [0039]; [0042]); and dynamically adjusting the defined time-length for at least one of the new reference windows (see [0039]; [0042]).
Referring to claim 9, Qi discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: maintaining a history of measured access frequency values for the data element based on the monitored access events (see [0039]); and in response to determining, based on the history, that a randomness of the measured access frequency values is greater than a predefined randomness threshold value, generating a signal indicating that the data element is not intended for sampling (see [0039]).
Referring to claim 10, Qi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: maintaining metadata about data elements in the target database, the metadata indicating whether the data elements are enabled for sampling (see [0040]).
Referring to claim 11, Qi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data source is a log reader for data replication from a source database (see [0029]; [0039]; [0042]).
Referring to claim 12, Qi discloses a system, comprising:
a processor set (see [0080]-[0082]);
one or more computer-readable storage media (see [0080]-[0082]); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations (see [0080]-[0082]) comprising:
determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length [predetermined time period] (see [0039]; [0041]; [0042] – The intelligent sync module is configured to execute processing to generate a synchronization interval classification prediction as well as manage a state of contextual data, which is usable to generate a synchronization interval prediction. In response to receipt of the query, the intelligent sync module acts as an interface to obtain contextual data including access data to specific content. The historical device usage data provides logged records of access to content.); and
updating the data element [content] from a data source [data storage of the client] according to a refresh pattern [synchronization interval] determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency (see [0046]; [0047] – AI processing is applied, via one or more distributed computing components that may analyze contextual data and generate a synchronization interval classification prediction for synchronizing content during the user session. The synchronization interval classification prediction is then used to determine a synchronization interval for synchronizing content between the client and the distributed data storage. During the user session, content may be synchronized between data storage of the client 202 and the distributed data storage 206 based on the synchronization interval.).
Referring to claim 13, Qi discloses the system of claim 12, wherein a new reference time window starts at an end of the reference time window (see [0042]).
Referring to claim 14, Qi discloses the system of claim 12, wherein a new reference time window starts each time the data element is accessed (see [0042]).
Referring to claim 15, Qi discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: monitoring, for the data element, access events in new reference time windows (see [0039]; [0042]); and dynamically adjusting the defined time-length for at least one of the new reference windows (see [0039]; [0042]).
Referring to claim 18, Qi discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: maintaining a history of measured access frequency values for the data element (see [0039]); and in response to determining, based on the history, that a randomness of the measured access frequency values is greater than a predefined randomness threshold value, generating a signal indicating that the data element is not intended for sampling (see [0039]).
Referring to claim 19, Qi discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the data source is a log reader for data replication from a source database (see [0029]; [0039]; [0042]).
Referring to claim 20, Qi discloses a computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media (see [0081]-[0083]); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations (see [0081]-[0083]) comprising:
determining an access frequency for a data element in a target database based on a number of access events for the data element in a reference time window of a defined time-length [predetermined time period] (see [0039]; [0041]; [0042] – The intelligent sync module is configured to execute processing to generate a synchronization interval classification prediction as well as manage a state of contextual data, which is usable to generate a synchronization interval prediction. In response to receipt of the query, the intelligent sync module acts as an interface to obtain contextual data including access data to specific content. The historical device usage data provides logged records of access to content.); and
updating the data element [content] from a data source [data storage of the client] according to a refresh pattern [synchronization interval] determined based on the access frequency, wherein the updating comprises updating the data element with an update frequency at least twice the access frequency (see [0046]; [0047] – AI processing is applied, via one or more distributed computing components that may analyze contextual data and generate a synchronization interval classification prediction for synchronizing content during the user session. The synchronization interval classification prediction is then used to determine a synchronization interval for synchronizing content between the client and the distributed data storage. During the user session, content may be synchronized between data storage of the client 202 and the distributed data storage 206 based on the synchronization interval.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2021/0167794 to Richart et al teaches determining a sampling scheme for sensor data
US PGPub 2021/0103447 to Wei et al
US Patent No 10,261,862 to Hrie et al
US Patent No 12,254,024 to Geiselhart et al
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights