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 .
Claims 1 – 5 are pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 recite “sort records of a table including records in which values of a first key overlap by secure computation using a second key different from the first key; and delete records other than one record at a predetermined position in a set by secure computation for each of the sets of the records which is included in the table subjected to sorting and in which the first key overlaps.”
Step 1:
The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations are identified as abstract idea(s):
“sort records of a table” which is directed to a process that can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations directed to “a table including records in which values of a first key overlap by secure computation using a second key different from the first key” and “delete records other than one record at a predetermined position in a set by secure computation for each of the sets of the records which is included in the table subjected to sorting and in which the first key overlaps” are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as data types and data storage thereof (including deletion of stored data.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations such as “processing circuitry”, “analysis device”, and “computer” are directed to implementing the abstract idea on a computer or merely using generic computer components to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 recites wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to sort the records in the table in a designated order among ascending order and descending order.
Step 1:
The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations are identified as abstract idea(s):
“sort the records in the table in a designated order among ascending order and descending order” which is a process that can be performed in the human mind. Sorting into an ascending or descending order is a determination that can be made based on observation and judgement.
Step 2A prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for similar reason as claim 1 above.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of similar reason to claim 1 above.
Claim 3 recites delete records other than one record at the highest rank or the lowest rank in the set.
Step 1:
The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations are identified as abstract idea(s):
See abstract idea of claim 1 above. Additionally, determination of records other than one record at the highest or lowest rank in the set is an observation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because deletion of rows in a table is mere insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of similar reason to claim 1 above.
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 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0218840 A1 issued to Smith et al (hereinafter Smith).
As to claim 1, Smith discloses an analysis device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
sort records of a table including records in which values of a first key overlap by secure computation using a second key different from the first key (sorting keys by key/value pair, and rows associated with same key (i.e. overlap) are combined or otherwise compacted, see Smith: Para. 0032, 0048, 0056 – 0058, Figs 7A – 7C); and
delete records other than one record at a predetermined position in a set by secure computation for each of the sets of the records which is included in the table subjected to sorting and in which the first key overlaps (duplicate value rows and older instances are compacted/removed after sorting so that only a single instance of the row remains, see Smith: Para. 0032, 0048, 0056 – 0058, Figs 7A – 7C).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, Smith discloses the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to sort the records in the table in a designated order among ascending order and descending order (rows are sorted in order by time after being sorted by name keys, see Smith: Para. 0032, 0048, 0056 – 0058, Figs 7A – 7C).
As to claim 3, Smith discloses the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to delete records other than one record at the highest rank or the lowest rank in the set (only the newest instance is kept when rows/columns associated with older timestamps are “replaced” with the more recent timestamp entry, see Smith: Para. 0032, 0048, 0056 – 0058, Figs 7A – 7C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights