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 is claiming the benefit as a Continuation of PCT/JP2024/007989 filed 4 March 2024 and foreign priority to JP2023-075853 filed 1 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5 May 2026 and 10 July 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraphs [0005] and [0016] of the filed Specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 81a (Fig 11). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 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 an analysis device comprising: processing circuitry configured to: extract, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table.
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 limitation of extract, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table, as drafted, is a process that, under the 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 extracting records while protecting information from a plurality of sub-tables that were created by dividing an original table into sub-tables based on a range of values in a column. 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 an analysis device and processing circuitry. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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 an analysis device and processing circuitry. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites an analysis method performed by an analysis device, the method comprising: extracting, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table.
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 limitation of extracting, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table, as drafted, is a processes that, under the 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, this limitation depicts a person extracting records while protecting information from a plurality of sub-tables that were created by dividing an original table into sub-tables based on a range of values in a column. 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 element of an analysis device. The element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 element of an analysis device. The element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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, the additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a analysis program causing that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: extracting, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table.
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 extracting, by secure computation, a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table, as drafted, is a process that, under the 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, this limitation depicts a person extracting records while protecting information from a plurality of sub-tables that were created by dividing an original table into sub-tables based on a range of values in a column. 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 medium, a program and a computer. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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 medium, a program and a computer. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of extracting) 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, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each claim is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 9,684,666 to Dorin et al (hereafter Dorin) in view of US PGPub 2019/0228010 to Ikarashi et al (hereafter Ikarashi).
Referring to claim 1, Dorin discloses an analysis device comprising: processing circuitry (see column 19, lines 17-28) configured to: extract a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups (see column18, lines 5-18 and 43-61 – The system receives a query requesting data from an external table having a predicate on attributes of the external table. A master node of the system may invoke a fragmenter of an extension service to determine where the fragments corresponding to the external table are located on the second distributed system. The system receives, by each segment node, filtered data corresponding to the rows of the external table. The system computes a result for the query using the filtered data.) obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table (see column 1, lines 7-11; column 7, lines 15-18; column 16, line 52 – column 17, line 6 – Massive distributed databases include tables that are partitioned across multiple storage devices, in which each partition stores a subset of rows or columns of a particular table.).
While Dorin teaches extracting a record group, Dorin fails to explicitly state that it is done by secure computation. Ikarashi teaches the joining of tables using a secure computation (see [0033]; [0057]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract the records of Dorin using secure computation as taught by Ikarashi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the resources necessary to keep the data secret (Ikarashi: see [0002]-[0003]).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Dorin and Ikarashi (hereafter Dorin/Ikarashi) teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a statistic for the table (Dorin: see column 7, lines 4-14 – obtain statistics about the data.).
Referring to claim 3, Dorin/Ikarashi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, the processing circuitry is further configured to perform column combination by secure computation on a plurality of first record groups obtained by dividing a first table and a plurality of second record groups obtained by dividing a second table (Dorin: see column 2, lines 21-49); and perform row combination by secure computation on a plurality of tables obtained by column combination (Dorin: see column 2, lines 21-49).
Referring to claim 4, Dorin discloses an analysis method performed by an analysis device, the method comprising: extracting a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups (see column18, lines 5-18 and 43-61 – The system receives a query requesting data from an external table having a predicate on attributes of the external table. A master node of the system may invoke a fragmenter of an extension service to determine where the fragments corresponding to the external table are located on the second distributed system. The system receives, by each segment node, filtered data corresponding to the rows of the external table. The system computes a result for the query using the filtered data.) obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table (see column 1, lines 7-11; column 7, lines 15-18; column 16, line 52 – column 17, line 6 – Massive distributed databases include tables that are partitioned across multiple storage devices, in which each partition stores a subset of rows or columns of a particular table.).
While Dorin teaches extracting a record group, Dorin fails to explicitly state that it is done by secure computation. Ikarashi teaches the joining of tables using a secure computation (see [0033]; [0057]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract the records of Dorin using secure computation as taught by Ikarashi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the resources necessary to keep the data secret (Ikarashi: see [0002]-[0003]).
Referring to claim 5, Dorin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a analysis program causing that causes a computer to execute a process (see column 19, lines 48-62) comprising: extracting a record group satisfying a condition from a plurality of record groups (see column18, lines 5-18 and 43-61 – The system receives a query requesting data from an external table having a predicate on attributes of the external table. A master node of the system may invoke a fragmenter of an extension service to determine where the fragments corresponding to the external table are located on the second distributed system. The system receives, by each segment node, filtered data corresponding to the rows of the external table. The system computes a result for the query using the filtered data.) obtained by dividing a plurality of records included in a table based on a value of a column of the table (see column 1, lines 7-11; column 7, lines 15-18; column 16, line 52 – column 17, line 6 – Massive distributed databases include tables that are partitioned across multiple storage devices, in which each partition stores a subset of rows or columns of a particular table.).
While Dorin teaches extracting a record group, Dorin fails to explicitly state that it is done by secure computation. Ikarashi teaches the joining of tables using a secure computation (see [0033]; [0057]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract the records of Dorin using secure computation as taught by Ikarashi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the resources necessary to keep the data secret (Ikarashi: see [0002]-[0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2004/0122845 to Lohman et al teaches the partitioning of a database and the execution of a query in parallel.
US PGPub 2021/0397619 to Heimel et al teaches the execution of a query on a table that has been partitioned.
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