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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner respectfully points to MPEP 2111.04 on the interpretation of “wherein” statements in method claims:
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses”
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed at the mental/ pen and paper process of tracking task/goal progress without significantly more.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category? Yes the claims are directed to a method, system, non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A:
Prong 2A: Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? Yes the claims are directed at the mental/ pen and paper process of tracking task/goal progress.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites:
receiving, by a computing system, milestones to define objects and attributes associated with the objects, wherein the objects and the attributes define an architecture of a system; Examiner respectfully notes:
First examiner notes the language used “to define” and “wherein” statement. The defining step is actually never performed, furthermore wherein merely defines the data and is subject to interpretation under MPEP section 2111.04 when part of an independent claim.
Second, defining goals, and how to track progress is a mental process that can be performed mentally or by pen and paper.
Lastly, transmitting/receiving information/data for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
providing, by the computing system, a first table associated with a first milestone, the first table configured to receive a first set of objects associated with the first milestone; Examiner respectfully notes:
Organizing data in a table, where tracking information will be tracked is a mental process that can be performed mentally.
Furthermore, transmitting/receiving information/data for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
receiving, by the computing system, the first set of objects and a corresponding set of attributes for the first set of objects; Examiner respectfully notes:
Filling in the tracking data can be performed mentally or by pen and paper and therefore part of the abstract idea.
Furthermore transmitting/receiving information/data for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
receiving, by the computing system, an indication to advance to a second milestone that follows the first milestone; Examiner respectfully notes:
Realizing that according to the progress it is time to advance is a determination and therefore part of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, transmitting/receiving information/data for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
and providing, by the computing system, a second table associated with the second milestone, the second table configured to receive a second set of objects associated with the second milestone. Examiner respectfully notes:
Creating a table to track the next part of your goal can be performed mentally or by pen and paper and therefore part of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, transmitting/receiving information/data for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
Examiner respectfully that the claim is not integrated into a practical application because:
In its analysis, the Federal Circuit enquired whether "the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices, or, instead, 'a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool."' Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here tracking goals by using checkpoints and milestones is a mental process of organizing data that computers are merely being invoked as a tool.
Furthermore the claims are deemed to not provide a specific technical solution and improvement to tracking goals using tables, but deemed to cover any means for tracking goals using tables.
The claims are silent to how the any of the technical steps entail; receiving, from who? What protocol? Is there a change in packet structure to allow for this invention? What is the object, is it a special data structure, what is that structure? The claims lack the specificity to entail a specific technical solution, to a technical problem.
In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir 2018) The courts determined Claim 12 of the ‘259 patent to be patent eligible because it provided limitations directed at the specific technical solution and concluded that the invention therein was "directed to a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets" rather than an abstract idea. The courts further determined that a broad version of the claim, Claim 1 of the ‘551 patent was patent ineligible and was struck down under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the court determined the claim "generically recites associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable page identifier and does not recite the specific implementation of a notebook tab interface." And further stated "not limited to the specific technical solution and improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality that rendered representative claim 12 of the '259 patent eligible . . . [i]nstead, claim 1 . . . covers any means for identifying electronic spreadsheet pages.". For the same reasoning and rationale the examiner is of the opinion that the claim is directed at an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-6, and 8-10 recites steps or inputting, organizing, defining, and displaying data, the examiner respectfully points to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites steps for inferring (mental process) and adding data (mental or pen and paper process).
Step 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, the claims lack to add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims inherit the same rejections as claims 1-10 above for reciting similar limitations.
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, 6, 8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 20100138268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: (0012; systems and methods)
receiving, by a computing system, milestones to define objects (tasks that define milestones that define projects) and attributes (tasks and dependencies and description etc see Gifs 5A-5B) associated with the objects, (0012; the systems receives milestones; 0012; . In one implementation, for example, the systems and/or methods may receive milestone, task, and/or dependency information associated with a project, may generate a progress management model based on the received information, and may provide the progress management model for display. The systems and/or methods may generate a milestone flow chart, with dependencies among milestones, based on the milestone information and associated dependency information, and may provide the milestone flow chart for display. The systems and/or methods may generate a task flow chart, with dependencies among tasks, based on the task information and associated dependency information, may provide the task flow chart for display, and may provide, to one or more users, one or more notifications associated the milestone and task flow charts.)
wherein the objects (projects) and the attributes (tasks and dependencies) define an architecture of a system; (Fig 6; firewall, lab, data and process mapping, customer and connectivity and integration, all of which are part of milestone details, and part of setting up an architecture; 0048; FIG. 6 illustrates a diagram of an exemplary user interface 600 that is capable of being generated by user device 110 and/or progress management server 120 (e.g., via progress management application 320). As illustrated in FIG. 6, user interface 600 may depict a graphic flow chart (e.g., one of graphic flow charts 450) of milestones associated with a project. The milestone graphic flow chart may be generated based on the progress management model depicted in FIG. 5. In an exemplary implementation, progress management server 120 may utilize one or more dynamically defined templates (e.g., extensible markup language (XML) templates) that include sequences of milestones, tasks, and/or dependencies, and may convert the one or more templates into the milestone graphic flow chart depicted in FIG. 6. In one example, progress management server 120 may generate the milestone graphic flow chart using JavaScript and dynamic hypertext markup language (DHTML), and may display the milestone graphic flow chart via a web-based user interface. The milestone graphic flow chart may support multiple browser applications, and may be embedded into web pages. 0050; As shown in FIG. 6, milestones 610 may include a “Pre-implementation” milestone, a “Data & Process Mapping” milestone, a “Customer Development” milestone, a “Firewall Setup” milestone, a “Customer Setup User Acceptance Testing (UAT)” milestone, a “Lab Development” milestone, a “Connectivity Tune-up” milestone, an “Integration Testing” milestone, a “Customer Setup Product (Prod)” milestone, a “UAT Testing” milestone, and a “Production” milestone. )
providing, by the computing system, a first table associated with a first milestone, the first table configured to receive a first set of objects associated with the first milestone; (Fig 5A shows the project, the milestone, and the tasks associated with the milestone information in a table form, where each task can be an object (equivalent to first set of objects) tasks 540 part of the milestone “pre-implementation”)
receiving, by the computing system, the first set of objects (mapping above to tasks) and a corresponding set of attributes (tasks information 550) for the first set of objects; (Fig 5A: shows tasks 540 (prepare startup kit etc (tasks 540)) and each have a corresponding set of attributes (owner, status, planned, start, due etc))
receiving, by the computing system, an indication to advance to a second milestone (first dependent milestone completed (See Fig 5a and 6 – milestone “pre-implementation” and goes to the next milestone “Data and Process Mapping”) that follows the first milestone;(Fig 5A-6; 0032; Dependency information 430 may include relationships between project milestones; See Fig 6 shows dependencies between the two milestones 610; [0049] As shown in FIG. 6, user interface 600 may include one or more milestones 610 associated with a project, one or more dependencies 620 between milestones 610, a critical path 630 associated with milestones 610, and milestone details 640. In one example, the project associated with the information depicted in FIG. 6 may include a telecommunications network installation project.; 0042; As shown in FIG. 5, the milestone summary section may include a milestone name field (e.g., "Pre-Implementation"), a milestone owner field (e.g., "Joe Smith"), a milestone state field (e.g., "Completed"), a planned milestone duration field (e.g., "17 day(s)"), a milestone start date field (e.g., "03/26/2008"), a milestone due date field (e.g., "04/17/2008"))
and providing, by the computing system, a second table associated with the second milestone, the second table configured to receive a second set of objects associated with the second milestone. (Fig 5B shows another milestone table, with second set of tasks (objects) that are associated with the second milestone “data and process mapping”)
Regarding claim 6, Guo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Guo teaches wherein an object of the first set of objects (task for a milestone) or the second set of objects (tasks for a milestone) is at least one of a component of a system (examiner notes this elements is part of an OR limitation and is not elected for mapping), a zone in which the component is included (examiner notes this elements is part of an OR limitation and is not elected for mapping), or an interface that connects the component to another component within the system. (Fig 6; shows a firewall which acts as an interface as it allows or blocks access and communication, as well as connectivity and integration testing, Milestones 610 may include names of milestones associated with the project and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the milestones associated with the project. In one implementation, user device 110 and/or progress management server 120 may automatically create milestones 610 based on milestone information 410. As shown in FIG. 6, milestones 610 may include a “Pre-implementation” milestone, a “Data & Process Mapping” milestone, a “Customer Development” milestone, a “Firewall Setup” milestone, a “Customer Setup User Acceptance Testing (UAT)” milestone, a “Lab Development” milestone, a “Connectivity Tune-up” milestone, an “Integration Testing” milestone, a “Customer Setup Product (Prod)” milestone, a “UAT Testing” milestone, and a “Production” milestone. In one exemplary implementation, milestones 610 may be shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with milestones 610 (e.g., a red milestone 610 (not shown) may indicate that the milestone is behind schedule, a green milestone 610 (not shown) may indicate that the milestone is complete, etc.).)
Regarding claim 8, Guo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, and is disclosed above, Guo further teaches further comprising: populating at least one attribute associated with the component based on the interface that connects the component to the other component. (Examiner interprets this limitation as (1) The interface is an interface and the connectivity setup as an interface as well, connections connect components, and therefore the milestones regarding the firewall and the connectivity include a table such as those in Figs 5A and 5B and therefore must have attributes; 0039 teaches the interface, [0050, 0051, 0052] teach the connectivity milestone [0065] further teaches tasks for the milestone Tasks 810 may include names of tasks associated with the milestone and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the tasks associated with the milestone. In one implementation, user device 110 and/or progress management server 120 may automatically create tasks 810 based on task information 420. As shown in FIG. 8, tasks 810 may include a “Submit External Project” task, a “Gather Requirements” task, a “Prepare Tunnel Option” task, a “Gather IP/Port Requirements” task, a “Submit Firewall Request” task, a “Connectivity Review” task, a “Submit Filter Requests” task, and an “Implement Firewall Rules” task. In one exemplary implementation, tasks 810 may be shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with tasks 810 (e.g., an oval shaped task 810 (not shown) may indicate that the task is behind schedule, a square shaped task 810 (not shown) may indicate that the task is complete, etc.).)
Regarding claim 11, the claims inherit the same rejection as claim 1 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a system claims (0084; system; 0025; hardware; 0023; processor executing instructions stored in memory)
Regarding claim 16, the claims inherit the same rejection as claim 1 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a non-transitory media claims (0023; processor executing instructions stored on non-volatile memory)
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) 2, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20100138268 A1) furthermore He et al. (US 20160321233 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Guo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Guo does not explicitly teach wherein at least one row or column in the first table is specified to be visually hidden during the first milestone,
In an analogous art He teaches wherein at least one row or column in the first table is specified to be visually hidden during the first milestone, (Fig 2; [0045] FIG. 4 illustrates data presented to a user in a spreadsheet according to an embodiment. FIG. 4 shows a graphical user interface 400 generated by UI 103, for example, where columns and rows of data from one or more snapshots 110 are presented to a user. This example shows “Customers-US.xls” worksheet 401 from an Excel spreadsheet. Rows 401a include fields for country, name, title, address, and locality for example. UI 400 may include menu items to perform operations or obtain information on a project at 402, a particular worksheet 403, and perform actions on the worksheet at 404. Example actions that a business user may perform include show/hide columns, adding a formula (e.g., where a new column of values are a function one or more other columns of values), cleansing the worksheet data, removing duplicates, and others as shown, including an action history as mentioned above. Data statistics may also be invoked at 405 as described in more detail below; See also 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the application to modify the teachings of [Guo] to include [having a user interface with data flow objects and projects to hide table columns] as is taught by [He].
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to [improve displaying and transforming data].
Regarding claim 12, the claims inherit the same rejection as claim 2 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a system claims (0084; system; 0025; hardware; 0023; processor executing instructions stored in memory)
Regarding claim 17, the claims inherit the same rejection as claim 2 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a non-transitory media claims (0023; processor executing instructions stored on non-volatile memory)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20100138268 A1) furthermore Byron et al. (US 20150142418 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, and is disclosed above, Guo does not explicitly teach further comprising: formatting a cell of the first table to indicate a missing, improper, or conflicting object or attribute.
In an analogous art Byron teaches formatting a cell of the first table to indicate a missing, improper, or conflicting object or attribute. ([0117] The identification of cells that are suspicious of being erroneous may make use of various table formatting hints, such as column headers, row headers, cell formulas, and the like, to assist in identifying the regular structure of the block of cells and determining those cells that do not fit with the identified regular structure. Moreover, various artificial intelligence and machine learning methods may be employed to assist in identifying suspicious cells within the table structure. For example, features extracted during natural language processing of a document and the table structure, such as markup language information, layout information, functional clues, and the like, may be used to infer functional dependencies within the table structure. This facilitates training and using machine learning models which can then be used to signal the presence of a functional dependency within a table structure. The presence of erroneous or missing data values within the table structure may be performed by identifying portions of the table structure that break the functional dependencies identified by the machine learning models)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the application to modify the teachings of [Guo] to include [formatting a cell based on missing data values] as is taught by [Byron].
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to [improve error correction in documents and tables [0001-0003]]
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20100138268 A1) furthermore Hopkins (US 20190334791 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Guo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Guo does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving an indication to generate a system diagram based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects;
and generating a visual diagram or a description of the visual diagram.
In an analogous art Hopkins teaches receiving an indication to generate a system diagram based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects; ([0025] As mentioned above, routes or paths through the network 102 connect two or more devices of the network. These paths define how data may travel or flow through a network as the devices share data and communications. Large telecommunications networks may include several million of such paths that exchange data or communication packets on a daily basis to provide services and content to network users. As should be appreciated, tracking the performance or each path of a network flow may be close to an impossible task for a network administrator. Further, even limiting the view of network flows to a particular component or group of components may not provide an easily understandable picture of the network flows for those components. Thus, a system is provided herein that processes any number of network data flows and generates understandable visual data flow diagrams for use by network engineers or administrators to configure or provision network elements to improve the efficiency and operation of a telecommunications network. The data flow diagrams may be customizable for particular portions of the network as desired to further improve the understanding of the network configuration.); 0028 In one example, the network flow collector may be an application or applications that requests operational and data flow information from components of the network 102 on a continual basis. This may include both self-reporting and requests for operational information from the components. The collected network data flow information may then be stored as network flow collector data 210 and made available to the diagrammatic network flow computing system 202. Through the network flow collector and/or NOC, at least some aspect of the flow of communications and data through the network 102 may be obtained and provided to the diagrammatic network flow computing system 202.)
and generating a visual diagram or a description of the visual diagram. (mapping above + Fig 4 Diagram)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the application to modify the teachings of [Guo] to include [generating a system and workflow diagram] as is taught by [Hopkins].
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to [improve network flow diagram 0001-0005].
Claims Note
Claims 3-5, 7, 13-15, and 18-20 are not rejected in view of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaskell (US 20100305994 A1): [0073] The dependencies enable the system to determine when a milestone has been successfully completed. A blocking milestone will physically check all dependencies to ensure all tasks have been fully completed. If a blocking milestone has incomplete tasks associated with it then the system will prevent users from starting any of the following tasks. However, users can override the system and start a task but they will have to provide a reason. Informational An informational milestone is not linked to any Milestone dependencies. These milestones are visual indicators used to inform users of key dates within the project plan. Private Global Cell This defines a cell within the top-level project map which is `not` inherited by sub-projects. This type of cell is only applicable at the top level of the project map - therefore it is only defined once. Public Global Cell This type of cell is identical to `private global cells` except it is visible to sub-projects. The project map defines one instance of the public global cell for the entire project. Sub-projects will inherit this cell and it will be visible within the project map when viewed.
Mishra et al. (US 20170031975 A1): [0061] In an embodiment, expressions identified for in-memory materialization are added to a corresponding table as a hidden virtual columns. Hidden virtual columns, like user-defined virtual columns, do not have their values physically stored on disk and may be distributed across one or more in-memory VCUs. Hidden virtual columns differ from user-defined virtual columns in that the hidden virtual columns are not visible to the user. As an example, when a “select *” or “describe” operation is performed on a table, the user may view which physical and user-defined virtual columns belong to the table. However, the hidden virtual column information is not returned or displayed. [0062] Predictive analytics may also factor into the selection of expressions for caching, according to an embodiment. Database server instance 100 may include an analytic component that predicts, based on statistics maintained in ESS 150, which expressions are likely to become hot based on trends detected from recently received queries. For example, if certain queries extract the day part of a date column, the analytic component may predict that storing other parts of the date (such as months, years) as hidden virtual columns may be helpful. Similarly, database server instance 100 may predict which other expressions will become “hot” based on frequent co-occurrence patterns tracked within ESS 150.
O’Cull et al. (US 20100299669 A1): [0056] As illustrated in the example of FIG. 3, expand/collapse controls 314A and 314B (collectively, "expand/collapse controls 314") are positioned in the task name fields of each task item having one or more child task items (i.e., the task "A" and the task "D"). When the user 108 selects an expand/collapse control in the task name field of a task item when the child task items of the task item are hidden, the computing system 100 causes the user interface 300 to display the child task items of the task item in the table 308. When the user 108 selects an expand/collapse control in the task name field of a task item when the child task items of the task item are visible, the computing system 100 causes the user interface 300 not to display the child task items of the task item in the table 308. For example, if the user 108 were to select the expand/collapse control 314B when the task item "E" is shown, the computing system 100 causes the user interface 300 to hide the task item "E".
Bolognese et al. (US 20190042630 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDERRAHMEN H CHOUAT whose telephone number is (571)431-0695. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9AM to 5PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
Abderrahmen Chouat
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451