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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed 05/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 14 have been amended. Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-22 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 05/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 05/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1,10,14 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2 and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as seen in the table below.
Instant application
US 12,339,848
Reasoning
1.(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for optimizing a distributed database, the method comprising:storing one or more query logs, including past queries received by the distributed database, on a dynamic ledger; detecting that a threshold percentage of one or more edge devices have caused summary data to be stored on the dynamic ledger receiving, at an aggregator, the one or more query logs; determining, by the aggregator, common queries received by the one or more edge devices based on the one or more query logs; determining, by the aggregator, that at least one edge device of the one or more edge devices was not able to respond to at least one common query of the common queries received by the at least one edge device; generating an approximate query response to the at least one common query using the summary data identifying, based on the summary data, the one or more edge devices storing data relevant to the at least one common query; and causing, by the aggregator, the relevant data for responding to the at least one common query to be transmitted to the at least one edge device, wherein the at least one edge device responds to the at least one common query based on, at least in part, the relevant data and the approximate query response.
1. A method for processing a distributed join query for data stored in a distributed database including a network of edge devices, the method comprising: receiving, at an aggregator, the query for data stored in the distributed database from a query device, wherein the query is a request for at least one of: data stored at an edge device or data stored at other edge devices in the distributed database; generating, by the aggregator, a query plan based on the query, wherein the query plan includes instructions for the edge device to generate an approximate response to the query; and executing, by the edge device, the query plan based on the instructions, wherein the executing the query plan includes: generating, by the edge device, partial query results using one or more distributed reference tables stored at the edge device, wherein the one or more distributed reference tables include various data and metadata describing a structure of the data stored at the other edge devices in the distributed database, and wherein the partial query results include at least one of: a portion of the data stored at the edge device or a portion of the data stored at the other edge devices; generating, by the edge device, statistical information based on the partial query results; determining, by the edge device, a statistical confidence associated with the partial query results based on the statistical information; and in response to the statistical confidence exceeding a confidence interval threshold: generating, by the edge device, the approximate response to the query based on the statistical information; and transmitting, by the edge device, the approximate response to the query device.
The instant application recites similar limitations but omits the bolded limitations as seen in ‘848. Thus, the claims are not distinguishable.
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one common query is an edge query language (EDQL) query.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the query is an edge query language (EDQL) query.
The instant application recites similar limitations. Thus, the claims are not distinguishable.
14. (Currently Amended) A system for optimizing a distributed database, the system comprising: a dynamic ledger including one or more query logs having past queries received by the distributed database; and an aggregator including processing hardware and storage hardware, wherein the aggregator is configured to: receive the one or more query logs, from one or more edge devices; detect that a threshold percentage of a plurality of edge devices have caused summary data to be stored on the dynamic ledger determine common queries received by one or more the plurality of edge devices based on the one or more query logs; determine that at least one edge device was not able to respond to at least one common query of the common queries received by the at least one edge device; identify, based on the summary data, one or more edge devices of the plurality of edge devices storing data relevant to the at least one common query; generate an approximate query response to the at least one common query using the summary data: and transmit relevant data for responding to the at least one common query to the at least one edge device, wherein the at least one edge device responds to the at least one common query based on, at least in part, the relevant data and the approximate query response.
10. An edge device system comprising: a set of one or more processors that executes a set of computer-readable instructions, wherein the set of one or more processors collectively: receiving, at an aggregator, the query for data stored in the distributed database from a query device, wherein the query is a request for at least one of: data stored at an edge device or data stored at other edge devices in the distributed database; generating, by the aggregator, a query plan based on the query, wherein the query plan includes instructions for the edge device to generate an approximate response to the query; and executing, by the edge device, the query plan based on the instructions, wherein the executing the query plan includes: generating, by the edge device, partial query results using one or more distributed reference tables stored at the edge device, wherein the one or more distributed reference tables include various data and metadata describing a structure of the data stored at the other edge devices in the distributed database, and wherein the partial query results include at least one of: a portion of the data stored at the edge device or a portion of the data stored at the other edge devices; generating, by the edge device, statistical information based on the partial query results; determining, by the edge device, a statistical confidence associated with the partial query results based on the statistical information; and in response to the statistical confidence exceeding a confidence interval threshold: generating, by the edge device, the approximate response to the query based on the statistical information; and transmitting, by the edge device, the approximate response to the query device.
The instant application recites similar limitations but omits the bolded limitations as seen in ‘848. Thus, the claims are not distinguishable.
19. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14 wherein the at least one common query is an edge query language (EDQL) query.
11. The system of claim 10 wherein the query is an edge query language (EDQL) query.
The instant application recites similar limitations. Thus, the claims are not distinguishable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7,9,11-13,15-18 and 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cruise generally teaches receiving one or more lists of identifiers, generating a batch query from the one or more lists of identifiers, querying one or more data stores using the batch query, generating one or more response packets including results from querying using the batch query, and transmitting a first response packet to a first edge device. Generating the batch query may be performed by merging a plurality of lists of identifiers to form a merged list, and removing duplicate identifiers from the merged list. Further, the first response packet may be generated for the first edge device and includes enrichment data corresponding to identifiers transmitted by the first edge device. Additionally, may be the first response packet is generated for a plurality of edge devices including the first edge device and includes enrichment data corresponding to identifiers transmitted by the plurality of edge device.
Shadmon generally teaches a data request directed to a network of distributed servers includes receiving the data request from a client at a server. The method further includes extracting identifying information of requested data in the data request, using the server. The method further includes obtaining location information of the requested data indicating which of the distributed servers is storing the requested data, by comparing the identifying information to a distributed ledger. The method further includes sending the requested data from the server to the client.
The cited prior art when considered individually or in combination does not disclose the claimed invention. An updated prior art search was conducted and no prior anticipates or obviously teaches the claimed invention as recited in the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-1521. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM- 3:30 PM (ET).
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.
/S.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165