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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 11,475,008 contain(s) every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application 17/930821 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application 17/930821, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
17/930821
11520760
1. A system for providing bottom-up aggregation in a multidimensional database environment, comprising:
a data storage container including data that represent a multidimensional database, for at least one of storage or analysis of data; and
a computing device having a processor executing instructions that cause the processor to:
receive an input query that defines a region of data within the multidimensional database, the region of data includes links to other regions within the multidimensional database;
determine a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, wherein the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query;
determine a second set of data blocks from the other regions within the multidimensional database linked to in the region defined by the input query,
wherein the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions that contribute to the result of the input query; and
retrieve the determined first and second sets of data blocks from the data storage container to accumulate data in accordance with the input query,
wherein the multidimensional database is scanned to determine the first and second sets of data blocks while data is accumulated in accordance with the input query.
1. A system for providing bottom-up aggregation in a multidimensional database environment, comprising: a multidimensional database server for at least one of storage or analysis of data in a multidimensional database, the multidimensional database utilizing data blocks to store data, wherein the multidimensional database server includes: a storage container including data that represent at least a portion of the multidimensional database, the storage container being configured as one of a block storage option or an aggregate storage option; a data retrieval layer configured to retrieve data from at least one of the storage container or the multidimensional database during processing of a query; and a computing device having a processor executing instructions that cause the processor to:
receive an input query that defines a region within the multidimensional database, wherein the region defined by the input query includes links to other regions within the multidimensional database;
identify a first set of data blocks that contribute to a result of the input query, wherein the first set of data blocks are in the region within the multidimensional database defined by the input query;
identify a second set of data blocks from the other regions within the multidimensional database linked to in the region defined by the input query,
wherein the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions that contribute to the result of the input query; and
retrieve, using the data retrieval layer, the first and second sets of data blocks from one of the storage container or the multidimensional database to accumulate data in accordance with the input query,
wherein the data retrieval layer scans the multidimensional database to identify the first set of data blocks and the second set of data blocks while data is accumulated in accordance with the input query.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colossi et al. (US 20040215626) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 5890151) and in further view of Bestgen et al. (US 20080140622).
Regarding claim 1, Colossi teaches a system for providing bottom-up aggregation in a multidimensional database environment, comprising:
a data storage container including data that represent a multidimensional database, for at least one of storage or analysis of data ([0082]); and
a computing device having a processor executing instructions that cause the processor to:
receive an input query that defines a region of data within the multidimensional database ([0132], [0146], [0191], [0193] “generates OLAP-style queries, the user may start at the top of the cube (e.g., total revenue for the year) and drill down into quarterly and monthly aggregations”, [0199]-[0200], [0354]), the region of data includes links to other regions within the multidimensional database ([0087], [0097], [0114], [0117], [0146]);
determine a first set of data blocks ([0237]-[0238], [0273]-[0276], [0351] “Slices are selected for any query type”, [0354] “slice is selected by selecting a region of the cube model that the slice must reside in, establishing limits that restrict the slice”, F26B) of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, wherein the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query ([0195] “cube may be generated with sales data for a line of products. The data that exists shows the sales for each product, customer and store by day”, [0199], [0200]-[0226]);
determine a second set of data blocks ([0356]-[0357] “process repeats, selecting additional sets of related dimensions to be regions and selecting the best rollup within the region”) from the other regions within the multidimensional database linked to in the region defined by the input query ([0354] “On subsequent passes, the region is restricted to the subset of the virtual cube that is at or above the previously selected slice” [0356] “process repeats, selecting additional sets of related dimensions to be regions and selecting the best rollup within the region”, [0357]), wherein the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions that contribute to the result of the input query ([0225]-[0226], [0236]-[0238], [0354] “the region is restricted to the subset of the virtual cube”, [0355]-[0356]) (see NOTE); and
retrieve the determined first and second sets of data blocks from the data storage container to accumulate data in accordance with the input query ([0239], [0344], [0348]-[0349], [0366]),
wherein the multidimensional database is scanned to determine the first and second sets of data blocks
Colossi does not explicitly teach “a first set of data blocks” and “a second set of data blocks.” Instead, Colossi teaches a first and second data of summary table containing slices of the cube model regions that the query specified [0225], [0354]. Such slices of the cube model dimensions are construed to be analogous to the first and second sets of “data blocks.”
NOTE – Colossi teaches a plurality of slices (data blocks) returned for the input query. Such slices linked to other regions (see F22-25) and comprise subset of blocks that contribute to the result of the input query ([0225]-[0226], [0236]-[0238], [0354] “the region is restricted to the subset of the virtual cube”, [0355]-[0356]). However, If Colossi does not explicitly teach Agrawal discloses determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query (C6L38-45, 60-67, “computes intermediate partial sums for smaller portions of the data cube … corresponding to the query region of the data cube to obtain the query result, C7L8-12, C12L21-24, 48-50, C15L65-67, C16L1-14, 30-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Colossi to include second sets of data blocks linked to the region defined by the input query as disclosed by Agrawal. Doing so speed up query processing and improves performance or the query (Agrawal C6L28, C10L12-13).
Colossi does not explicitly teach, however Bestgen discloses wherein the multidimensional database is scanned ([0040], [0062]) to determine the first and second sets of data blocks while data is accumulated in accordance with the input query (F3:306, 318, [0063], [0068], [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Colossi to retrieve data from the data storage container while data is accumulated as disclosed by Bestgen. Doing so would provide more efficient scan and more efficient access to the data (Bestgen [0042]).
Claims 6 and 11, recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12, Colossi as modified teaches the system, the method and the medium, wherein the storage container is one of a block storage option, or an aggregate storage option (Colossi [0365], [0191], Agrawal C10L20-32, C15L65-67).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, Colossi as modified teaches the system, the method and the medium, wherein a dynamic flow process includes a marking of members as dynamic, for use during the processing of the input query (Colossi [0223]), and expanding dynamic members down to a selection of aggregated members (Colossi [0134], [0142], [0163], [0366]).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Colossi as modified teaches the system, the method and the medium, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to create a data structure that includes pointers to the data blocks, (Colossi [0194], [0414]) the data structure an array of arrays of pointers (Agrawal C5L27-29, C10L38-45, C13L65-67).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, Colossi as modified teaches the system, the method and the medium, wherein the instructions cause the processor to provide a response to the input query, the response including accumulated data (Colossi [0335], [0341]-[0342]).
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 14 is/are additionally or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colossi as modified and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 9535952) or Zhou (US 20150310047).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Colossi as modified teaches the system, the method and the medium as disclosed above Zhang further discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to create a data structure that includes pointers to the data blocks, the data structure an array of arrays of pointers (C14L57-67, C14L38-45, C13L65-67).
Zhou analogously teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to create a data structure that includes pointers to the data blocks, the data structure an array of arrays of pointers ([0019]-[0020], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Colossi as modified to retrieve data from the data storage container while data is accumulated as disclosed by Zhang or Zhou. Doing so would provide dynamic selection of optimal grouping sequence at runtime for grouping sets (Zhang C1L24-25) and allows efficient data scans while maintaining the efficiency of indexed lookups (Zhou [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/13/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not deemed persuasive.
The applicant argues –
“The cited art does not appear to describe determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, where the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query; and determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query.”
Specifically with respect to Colossi, the applicant states –
“Colossi does not describe determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, where the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query; and determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query as provided in claim 1.”
The arguments are not persuasive. There are two limitations in the preceding arguments. Both limitations require determining first and second data blocks from a first and second region of the multidimensional database. The limitation broadly reads on any basic querying of a multidimensional data, as any region/block in the multidimensional database is linked to other dimensions through a chain of a hierarchy.
Colossi teaches issuing “all sorts of queries” against multidimensional database, which can be “drilldown, report, extract, and drillthrough” queries [0362]. All of such queries read and return “slices” of a cube model – “Slices are selected for any query type” [0351]. A data slice is highly analogous to a "data block" or a 2D subset extracted from a 3D data cube. It is a fundamental OLAP (Online Analytical Processing) operation used to reduce the dimensionality of a cube by picking a single value for one of its dimensions. For example report queries “are generated to produce data (e.g., defined by a report designer) that matches slices of the cube model” [0238]; “Report queries can be for any slices in a cube model. Suppose three queries are executed and then read the following slices: [All Time, Store State, All Customers, Product Line] [Year, Store Country, Customer Country, Product Group]([0273]-[0276]).
Defining a query that matches and read slices of the cube model that define different regions or dimensions, as shown above, is fully analogous to the limitation “determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, where the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query.”
Colossi further teaches “report queries, initially, can be the request for data at a particular level or slice ( e.g. sales figures for the West region for all products). Then, there may be a drill up for more summary level data or drilldown for more detailed data based on user interactions” [0238]. Drilling up or down for more summary level data produces further data slices (second sets of data blocks) and is analogous to the limitation of “determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query.”
With respect to other queries, such as drilldown, extract, and drillthrough queries, Colossi shows analogous functionality –
“For drillthrough queries, the optimization is restricted to the region of the cube model defined by cubes” [0344]; “for drillthrough queries … select a slice that corresponds to the bottom of the region to be optimized”; “crossing slices will be chosen from candidate slices with the highest dimensional cardinality” [0357]; “OLAP systems issue multidimensional queries. These queries may request data to be aggregated at various levels of the dimension hierarchies. The RDBMS reads the data and aggregates the data to the appropriate level” [0318].
Selecting slices from the region of the cube model (aka multidimensional database) defined by the query is fully analogous to the limitation “determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, where the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query.”
Colossi further teaches “process repeats, selecting additional sets of related dimensions to be regions and selecting the best rollup within the region” [0356]; “slices are consolidated if they are a subset of other slices. Slice consolidation can also be done by creating a lower level slice that can satisfy two or more other candidate slices” [0349]. Selecting additional dimensions (second sets of data blocks) and repeating the process of querying is analogous to the limitation of “determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query.”
The applicant also states –
“Colossi describes automatic selection of various slices and/or rollups to include in a summary table … That … can be accessed when a query is received. Thus, Colossi describes pre-determination of summary tables independent of a received input query. Colossi does not describe determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database.”
The arguments are not persuasive. Such statement is flawed. Colossi teaches - [0225] “A summary table could be built containing the exact slice that the query specified”; [0189] “summary tables also match the SQL queries generated by the front end systems” Clearly, the slices can be generated based on query parameters and contribute to a result of the input query, as required.
Thus, Colossi on his own is fully discloses the limitations of “determining a first set of data blocks of the multidimensional database that contribute to a result of the input query, where the first set of data blocks are in the region of the multidimensional database defined by the input query; and determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query.”
The reference of Agrawal is merely used to show that the slices from the multidimensional database are the data blocks. Agrawal further clarifies the claimed language and further discloses the limitation of determining a second set of data blocks from the other regions linked to in the region defined by the input query, where the second set of data blocks include a subset of data blocks from the other regions contribute to the result of the input query in C6L38-67, C16L15-41, C7L8-12, C12L21-50.
The applicant does not provide any specific argument with respect to Agrawal or Bestgen. Based on the above the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 April 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights