DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to application filed on 10/21/2022, in which claims 1 – 20 was presented for examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2022 has been received and entered into the record. The submission 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.
5.1 Claims 1 - 20 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
receive a database query associated with a user from a software program (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation)).
identify data records within the database that the user has permission to access based on database accessibility rights of the user stored within the index (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
prior to execution of the database query, load the identified data records that the user has permission to access into the memory and filter out other data records from the database which the user does not have permission to access (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
execute the database query on the identified data records loaded from the database and return query results from the execution to the software program (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
identify data records within the database that the user has permission to access based on database accessibility rights of the user stored within the index (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
prior to execution of the database query, load the identified data records that the user has permission to access into the memory and filter out other data records from the database which the user does not have permission to access (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
execute the database query on the identified data records loaded from the database and return query results from the execution to the software program (the step is directed to combining information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
identify data records within the database that the user has permission to access based on database accessibility rights of the user stored within the index (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
prior to execution of the database query, load the identified data records that the user has permission to access into the memory and filter out other data records from the database which the user does not have permission to access (this step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of evaluating data).
execute the database query on the identified data records loaded from the database and return query results from the execution to the software program (the step is directed evaluating and presenting information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to collecting, evaluating, and presenting information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, a plurality of columns that represent a plurality of users, a plurality of rows that represent a plurality of ranges of identifiers (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and indicators stored within the cells which identify access privileges of the plurality of users (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organization)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, a plurality of columns that represent a plurality of users, a plurality of rows that represent a plurality of ranges of identifiers (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and indicators stored within the cells which identify access privileges of the plurality of users (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
identify the user based on a user identifier embedded within the database query which is received from the software program. (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
identify the user based on a user identifier embedded within the database query which is received from the software program (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
generate, via a query optimizer, a query plan for the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
generate, via a query optimizer, a query plan for the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
generate a plurality of cost estimates for a plurality of possible query plans of the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index, and select the query plan from among the plurality of possible query plans based on the plurality of cost estimates (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
generate a plurality of cost estimates for a plurality of possible query plans of the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index, and select the query plan from among the plurality of possible query plans based on the plurality of cost estimates (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
execute a maintenance operation on the index and remove one or more columns from the index that comprises all zero values therein (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
execute a maintenance operation on the index and remove one or more columns from the index that comprises all zero values therein (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, and the cells contain pointers to addresses which store access permissions of database accessibility rights of the plurality of users (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, and the cells contain pointers to addresses which store access permissions of database accessibility rights of the plurality of users (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the index stores more columns of database accessibility rights for the user than one or more other users among the plurality of users (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the index stores more columns of database accessibility rights for the user than one or more other users among the plurality of users (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 – 16 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claims 7 - 16 are method claim correspond to apparatus claims 1 — 8 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 — 8 are applied to claims 9 - 16 respectively.
Claims 17 - 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claims 17 - 20 are computer-readable storage medium claim correspond to apparatus claims 1 - 4, thus, the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 - 4 is applied to claims 17 - 20.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 11, 14, and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1).
As per claim 1, Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) discloses,
An apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store an index that comprises identifiers of access privileges for a plurality of users with respect to a database (para.[0013]; “computer systems are also described that may include one or more processors and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors”, para.[0026]; “repository 110 includes physical storage for the content items ( e.g. optical, magnetic, solid state, or other storage devices)”, and para.[0032]; “user permissions index 310 that correlates or otherwise associates user permissions 220 with those content items maintained in the CMS repository”).
and a processor configured to receive a database query associated with a user from a software program (para.[0013]; “current subject matter can be implemented by one or more data processors residing in a single computing system” and para.[0031]; “CMS 100 can include features relating to strategic evaluation of permissions of the query originator (e.g. a human user entering query terms into a search box or other user interface element, an application from within which a query is generated”).
identify data records within the database that the user has permission to access based on database accessibility rights of the user stored within the index (para.[0032]; “evaluation of the user permissions index 310 against the user identity 225 can optionally involve searching an ACL index for those ACLs designating the user identity as "access allowed" at a sufficient level of access to permit the user”).
prior to execution of the database query, load the identified data records that the user has permission to access into the memory and filter out other data records from the database which the user does not have permission to access (para.[0032]; “ (para.[0032]; “evaluation of the user permissions index 310 against the user identity 225 can optionally involve searching an ACL index for those ACLs designating the user identity as "access allowed" at a sufficient level of access to permit the user ……….. for example a content index, a metadata index, etc., can then
be filtered (e.g. a search on the content index 218 can be constrained) to only those entries relating to content items that appear on the ACLs identified in the search of the ACL index”, where limiting the search to only content that appear on the ACLs identified in the search of the ACL index is analogous to “prior to execution of the database query, load the identified data records that the user has permission to access into the memory” because ACL index is searched first to retrieve content that user is permitted to access and the query is only directed to the permitted content that was received by searching the ACL index ).
and execute the database query on the identified data records loaded from the database (para.[0032]; “(e.g. a search on the content index 218 can be constrained) to only those entries relating to content items that appear on the ACLs identified in the search of the ACL index”).
and return query results from the execution to the software program (para.[0029]; “a user initiates a search on the CMS, the results displayed to the user (e.g. via a user interface view)” and para.[0034]; “display of those results to a query originator”).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) discloses,
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, a plurality of columns that represent a plurality of users, a plurality of rows that represent a plurality of ranges of identifiers, and indicators stored within the cells which identify access privileges of the plurality of users (para.[0032]; “user permissions index 310 that correlates or otherwise associates user permissions 220 with those content items maintained in the CMS repository 110 or managed by the CMS 100 to which the user permissions 220 are applicable”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) discloses,
wherein the processor is further configured to identify the user based on a user identifier embedded within the database query which is received from the software program (para.[0032]; “evaluation of the user permissions index 310 against the user identity 225 can optionally involve searching an ACL index for those ACLs designating the user identity”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) discloses,
wherein the processor is configured to execute a maintenance operation on the index and remove one or more columns from the index that comprises all zero values therein (para.[0010]; “use of the permissions- corrected summary statistics to calculate faceting relevant to the permissions-filtered results set” and para.[0011]; “merging the current metadata index and the updated content index into a full content
index for the content management system”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) discloses,
wherein the index stores more columns of database accessibility rights for the user than one or more other users among the plurality of users (para.[0008]; “permissions index for permissions granted to the user based
on the user identity. The user permissions index can include an access control list index maintained by the search engine”).
Claims 9 – 11, 14, and 16 are method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 1 – 3, 6, and 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 6, and 8 respectively above.
Claims 17 - 19 are computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to apparatus claims 1 - 3 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 - 3 respectively above.
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.
7. Claims 4, 7, 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1), in view of Bernstein et al (US 2019/0361897 A1).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate, via a query optimizer, a query plan for the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index.
However, Bernstein et al (US 2019/0361897 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the processor is configured to generate, via a query optimizer, a query plan for the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index (fig.4 #404; “GENERATE AN EXECUTION PLAN BASED ON THE QUERY AND THE ACCESS CONTROL LIST”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate query optimization based on access control of the system of Bernstein into secure maintenance of content item of the system of Hind to identify and provide efficient mean of processing a query that protects the integrity of the data.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) does not specifically disclose wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, and the cells contain pointers to addresses which store access permissions of database accessibility rights of the plurality of users..
However, Bernstein et al (US 2019/0361897 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the index comprises a two-dimensional array of cells, and the cells contain pointers to addresses which store access permissions of database accessibility rights of the plurality of users (para.[0034]; “a user permissions index that correlates, or otherwise associates, user permissions with those content items maintained in the CMS repository 310 or managed by the CMS 308 to which the user permissions are applicable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate query optimization based on access control of the system of Bernstein into secure maintenance of content item of the system of Hind to identify and provide efficient mean of processing a query that protect the integrity of the data.
Claims 12 and 15 are method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 4 and 7 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 4 and 7 respectively above.
Claim 20 is a computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to apparatus claim 4, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 4 above.
8. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1), in view of Bernstein et al (US 2019/0361897 A1)
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Hind (US 2019/0394208 A1) and Bernstein et al (US 2019/0361897 A1) does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate a plurality of cost estimates for a plurality of possible query plans of the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index, and select the query plan from among the plurality of possible query plans based on the plurality of cost estimates.
However, Gimbel (US 2012/0036162 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the processor is configured to generate a plurality of cost estimates for a plurality of possible query plans of the database query based on the database accessibility rights of the user stored in the index, and select the query plan from among the plurality of possible query plans based on the plurality of cost estimates (para.[0019]; “Different plans are identical in terms of their output, but may differ in terms of their costs, i.e. the amount of time they may require to run. A query optimizer considers the possible query plans for a given input query, and attempts to determine which of those plans will be the most efficient”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate query plan cost estimate of the system of Gimbel into query optimization based on access control of the system of Bernstein to identify efficient cost of executing a query that improve the speed of retrieving the information.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 5, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TITLE: Column access control, US 11,803,650 B1 authors: Hocanin et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
2/20/2026