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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on September 8, 2025, claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-19 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 09/08/2025. In this action claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronimus et al. (US Patent No. 6691121) and Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 20220092049) in further view of Gieselhart et al. (US Patent No. 11354337). The Gieselhart et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion.
The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 09/08/2025 office action is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 8, applicant argues “The technical solution of the combination of elements results in a practical application and improvement to a database by enable the reorganizing to run to completion without failing due to UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria. With the technical solution, the reorganization process runs to completion and is then able to eliminate unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaim the free space elements for reuse.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); such as reorganizing a database, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
for each unit of work (UOW) from a plurality of UOWs stored in the area of the database, determining which of the CIs are allocated to each of the plurality of UOWs from the space maps (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining control intervals);
identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one VOW having the highest number of the Cls in the overflow part (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a unit-of-work);
setting selection criteria based on the number of buffers by inserting a command without manual intervention into a function to exclude UOWs exceeding the number of buffers (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to setting criteria).
traversing space maps of control intervals (CIs) for an overflow part of the area of the database (recites insignificant extra solution activity of traversing data);
reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion (recites insignificant extra solution activity of reorganizing a database).
A human can identify data and determine buffers provided by a computer (a generic tool) and make decisions about reorganization, which makes this still a mental process.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-3, 6-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 1-3, 6-7), a program product (claim 8-12), a system (claim 15-19), are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
traversing space maps of control intervals (CIs) for an overflow part of the area of the database (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing maps);
for each unit of work (UOW) from a plurality of UOWs stored in the area of the database, determining which of the CIs are allocated to each of the plurality of UOWs from the space maps (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining control intervals);
identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one VOW having the highest number of the Cls in the overflow part (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a unit-of-work);
setting selection criteria based on the number of buffers by inserting a command without manual intervention into a function to exclude VOWs exceeding the number of buffers (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to setting criteria).
reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse, the while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to reorganizing a database).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant
extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determine an amount of space allocated to units of work (UOWs) in an overflow part of the area of the database (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining space allocation);
determine a number of buffers required to reorganize the UOWs based on a UOW having a highest number of control intervals (Cis) in the overflow part (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining buffers);
set selection criteria based on the number of buffers to exclude VOWS exceeding the number of buffers (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to setting criteria); and
reorganize the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool reorganize a database).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 8 and 15:
a storage device having stored therein a database (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
a database management system communicatively coupled to the storage device (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
at least one processor (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function); and
a memory (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant
extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2, 11, and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the database includes a Fast Path database and the area includes a portion of the Fast Path database (recites insignificant extra solution activity of traversing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3, 12, and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the database includes a data entry database (DEDB) and the area includes a DEDB area (recites insignificant extra solution activity of traversing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein identifying the one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses the highest number of the CIs in the overflow part includes, for each UOW, counting the CIs in the overflow part in use by the one VOW (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to counting control intervals).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein traversing the space maps includes traversing the space maps for the overflow part of the area without reading the area in its entirety (recites insignificant extra solution activity of traversing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determine the amount of space allocated to the UOWs in the overflow part by traversing space maps for the overflow part of the area of the database (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining allocated space).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the executable code is configured to cause the at least one computing device to
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the executable code is configured to cause the at least one computing device to traverse the space maps by traversing the space maps for the overflow part of the area without reading the area in its entirety (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to traversing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronimus et al. (US Patent No. 6691121) and Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 20220092049) in further view of Gieselhart et al. (US Patent No. 11354337).
With respect to clam 1, Heronimus et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for reorganizing an area of a database, the computer-implemented method comprising:
traversing space maps (Column 2 Lines 13-31 discloses space maps) of control intervals (CIs) (Column 2 Lines 13-31 discloses control intervals) for an overflow part of the area of the database (Fig. 1 discloses an overflow part of a database);
for each unit of work (UOW) from a plurality of UOWs stored in the area of the database (Column 2 Lines 13-31 discloses UOWs), determining which of the Cls are allocated to each of the plurality of UOWs from the space maps (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals). Heronimus et al. does not disclose identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one UOW having the highest number of the Cis in the overflow part.
However, Zhang et al. discloses identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one UOW having the highest number of the Cis in the overflow part (Paragraph 81 discloses performance sensitive workloads are identified through one or more of a defined record access path, a record number or other record identifier, a record range within the table, a page range within the physical storage devices, a read page number, a list prefetch, a sequential I/O operation requirement, and any determined data record overflow condition, including an overflow ratio, hot spot conditions, and table space searching times);
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. with Zhang et al. to include identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one UOW This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
Heronimus et al. as modified by Zhang et al. does not disclose reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion.
However, Gieselhart et al. teaches setting selection criteria based on the number of buffers by inserting a command without manual intervention into a function to exclude UOWs exceeding the number of buffers (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process); and
reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. and Zhang et al. with Gieselhart et al. This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the database includes a Fast Path database and the area includes a portion of the Fast Path database (Column 7 Lines 18- 32 discloses IMS's fast path initialization).
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the database includes a data entry database (DEDB) and the area includes a DEDB area (Column 1 Lines 44-57 discloses One well-known type of IMS hierarchical database is the data entry database ("DEDB"). A DEDB is a set of database records stored in a collection of data set partitions called Areas).
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses the highest number of the Cls in the overflow part includes, for each UOW, counting the Cls in the overflow part in use by the one UOW (Column 3 Lines discloses like all IMS databases, are defined by the Database Description ("DBD") control block. The AREA macros are used in the DBD to describe the number, name and size attributes of each Area within the database. The UOW keyword specifies the number of root anchor point ("RAP") and dependent overflow ("DOVF") control intervals allocated to a single UOW).
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein traversing the space maps includes traversing the space maps for the overflow part of the area without reading the area in its entirety (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals).
With respect to clam 8, Heronimus et al. teaches a computer program product for reorganizing an area of a database, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer- readable medium and including executable code that, when executed, is configured to cause at least one computing device to:
determine an amount of space allocated to units of work (UOWs) in an overflow part of the area of the database (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals). Heronimus et al. discloses determine a number of buffers required to reorganize the UOWs based on a UOW having a highest number of control intervals (Cis) in the overflow part.
However, Shuma et al. discloses determine a number of buffers required to reorganize the UOWs based on a UOW having a highest number of control intervals (Cis) in the overflow part (Paragraph 81 discloses performance sensitive workloads are identified through one or more of a defined record access path, a record number or other record identifier, a record range within the table, a page range within the physical storage devices, a read page number, a list prefetch, a sequential I/O operation requirement, and any determined data record overflow condition, including an overflow ratio, hot spot conditions, and table space searching times).
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. with Zhang et al. to include identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one UOW This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
Heronimus et al. as modified by Zhang et al. does not disclose reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion.
However, Gieselhart et al. teaches set selection criteria based on the number of buffers by inserting a command without manual intervention into a function to exclude UOWs exceeding the number of buffers (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process); and
reorganize the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. and Zhang et al. with Gieselhart et al. This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Regarding claim 9, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer program product of claim 8, wherein the executable code is configured to cause the at least one computing device to determine the amount of space allocated to the UOWs in the overflow part by traversing space maps for the overflow part of the area of the database (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals).
The Heronimus et al. reference as modified by Zhang et al. and Gieselhart et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Regarding claim 10, Heronimus et al. discloses the computer program product of claim 9, wherein the executable code is configured to cause the at least one computing device to traverse the space maps by traversing the space maps for the overflow part of the area without reading the area in its entirety (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals).
With respect to claim 11, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 11 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to clam 15, Heronimus et al. teaches a system comprising:
a storage device having stored therein a database (Column 9 Lines 4-14 discloses a storage device);
a database management system communicatively coupled to the storage device (Column 7 Lines 17-32 discloses multiple IMS to use the extended Area in the DEDB. To accomplish this, certain program modules need to be hooked into IMS to enable communication among the shared IMS to support the extension of block level sharing of Areas);
at least one processor (Column 8 Lines 46-58 disclose a processor); and
a memory (Column 8 Lines 46-58 disclose a memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the database management system to:
determine an amount of space allocated to units of work (UOWs) in an overflow part of the area of the database (Column 2 Lines 47-55 discloses a SMAP control interval in the independent overflow portion of the Area will be used to acquire any available IOVF control intervals). Heronimus et al. discloses determine a number of buffers required to reorganize the UOWs based on a UOW having a highest number of control intervals (Cis) in the overflow part.
However, Shuma et al. discloses determine a number of buffers required to reorganize the UOWs based on a UOW having a highest number of control intervals (Cis) in the overflow part (Paragraph 81 discloses performance sensitive workloads are identified through one or more of a defined record access path, a record number or other record identifier, a record range within the table, a page range within the physical storage devices, a read page number, a list prefetch, a sequential I/O operation requirement, and any determined data record overflow condition, including an overflow ratio, hot spot conditions, and table space searching times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. with Zhang et al. to include identifying one UOW from the plurality of UOWs that uses a highest number of the CIs in the overflow part and determining a number of buffers required to reorganize the one UOW This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
Heronimus et al. as modified by Zhang et al. does not disclose reorganizing the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion.
However, Gieselhart et al. teaches set selection criteria based on the number of buffers by inserting a command without manual intervention into a function to exclude UOWs exceeding the number of buffers (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process); and
reorganize the area of the database using the selection criteria by eliminating unusable fragmented free space elements and reclaiming the free space elements for reuse while the database remains online for use during the reorganizing, the reorganizing also including bypassing UOWs from the plurality of UOWs that do not meet the selection criteria to run the reorganizing to completion (Column 3 Lines 53-65 discloses the maximum amount of additional system memory needed during the reorganization of database tables can be limited to a fixed size which the invention will not exceed, which allows for sufficient safety buffers with regard to the total available system memory, or could be calculated dynamically and anew for each step of the reorganization process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heronimus et al. and Zhang et al. with Gieselhart et al. This would have facilitated improving the reorganization of an area of a database.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 10, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 10.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 20070143380 is directed to Apparatus, System, And Method For Reorganizing A Set Of Database Partitions: [0015] Many different conventional databases are available, each of which may use different terms to describe the storage scheme described above. For example, in the case of a Data Entry Database (DEDB), a partition is known as an area and a block is known as a Control Interval (CI). In each area of a DEDB, a Unit of Work (UOW) is yet another example of a partition that has both dependent and independent overflow blocks. In other databases, a partition is known as a set of extents and blocks are known as pages or records.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154