DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 25 September 2026, claims 1, 31 and 35 are amended. Claims 2-20 are canceled. Claims 1 and 21-41 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim objections, filed 25 September 2026, and based on claim amendments the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed 25 September 2026, have been carefully considered and based on the arguments the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 25 September 2026, have been carefully considered and are not considered to be persuasive:
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENT: Applicant further argues that claim 1 assigns the determination to store the new table and the generation of the storage request to the query and response sub-system. The data ingest sub-system does not determine whether to store the new table or generate the storage request; rather, it receives the request and the new table after those operations have already been performed by the query and response sub-system for further LTS processing
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Examiner has carefully considered the argument but respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not appear to be pointing to specific claim limitations in the argument and as a result it appears that the arguments are related to claim limitation “determine to store the new table; and generate a request to store the new table;”. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation “determine to store the new table and generate a request to store the new table” may be reasonably interpreted as for creating a new table and including instructions for establishing an initiation of objects. Hempelmann reference teaches in [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”. Helpmann reference does mention that a determination is made to create a new table based on which the instructions are generated to determine an initiation of objects, wherein tables are considered to be objects. Therefore, Helpmann reference teaches the limitations. As a result the above argument cannot be considered to be persuasive.
The other arguments are related to newly added claim limitations and are addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 29 and 40 recite “compressing the set of data segments of the new table using null data compression; and compressing the set of data segment of the new table using run length encoded data”. These claim limitations appear to be citing intended use in terms of what the null data compression and run length encoded data are used for. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite the functionality performed by the claimed method, instead of reciting what the claim elements are used for.
Claims 30 and 41 recite “using forward error correction encoding”. These claim limitations appear to be citing intended use in terms of what the forward error correction encoding is used for. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite the functionality performed by the claimed method, instead of reciting what the claim elements are used for.
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.
Claims 1, 23, 25, 31, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yung et al. (US 11,157,493 B2, hereinafter “Yung”) in view of Hempelmann et al. (US 2019/0294505 A1, hereinafter “Hempelmann”) further in view of Prosser et al. (US 2007/0282684 A1, hereinafter “Prosser”).
Regarding claim 1, Yung teaches
A database system comprises: (see Yung, [col 3 lines 4-15] “illustrates a sample environment in which a data management system disclosed in the present application can operate… The server 102 typically runs on an enterprise system that has sufficient computing and storage capabilities for managing the component database 106 and handling a number of database queries from the client controller 104”).
a query and response sub-system that includes (see Yung, [col 3 lines 12-15] “The server 102 typically runs on an enterprise system that has sufficient computing and storage capabilities for managing the component database 106 and handling a number of database queries from the client controller 104”) first pluralities of computing nodes, wherein a first set of the first pluralities of computing nodes is operable to: (see Yung, [col 11 lines 10-18] “The computing system 1400 may include one or more central processing units ("processors") 1405, memory 1410, input/output devices 1425 (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices, display devices), storage 15 devices 1420 (e.g., disk drives), and network adapters 1430 (e.g., network interfaces) that are connected to an interconnect 1415”).
perform root-level query operations on inner-level partial query results to produce a final result of a query regarding a dataset, wherein the final result is saved in the data store with respect to the dataset; (see Yung, [col 9 lines 5-26] “1004, the client controller identifies a top-level data query corresponding to the user request…data queries are typically developed in a hierarchical manner following the structure of the data… builds the hierarchy of data queries that can be expanded from the top-level data query… By submitting the entire hierarchy or a sufficient subset, the client controller receives all the necessary data at once from the server and reduces the number of network trips… receives from the server a corresponding set of results from executing the set of data queries… then saves the set of results into the local database”; [col 3 lines 53-54] “receives the query results from the server 102 and saves the query results in the data store 108”).
… the query and response sub-system; (see Yung, [col 3 lines 12-15] “The server 102 typically runs on an enterprise system that has sufficient computing and storage capabilities for managing the component database 106 and handling a number of database queries from the client controller 104”).
Yung does not explicitly teach includes a new table of data; determine to store the new table; and generate a request to store the new table; a data ingest sub-system that includes second pluralities of computing nodes, wherein a second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is operable to: receive the request and the new table from the query and response sub-system; in response to the request, long term storage (LTS) processing the new table to produce LTS data, wherein the LTS processing includes: dividing the new table into a set of data segments; and processing the set of data segments in accordance with one or more of data compression, indexing and ensure coding to produce the LTS data; and a store and compute sub-system that includes third pluralities of computing nodes, wherein a third set of computing nodes of the third pluralities of computing nodes is operable to: store the LTS data in memory devices of the third set of computing nodes.
However, Hempelmann discloses backups and teaches
includes a new table of data (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”).
determine to store the new table; and generate a request to store the new table; (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”).
a data ingest sub-system that includes second pluralities of computing nodes, wherein a second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is operable to: (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102).
receive the request and the new table…; (see Hempelmann, [0002] “sending a request, using a REST call, to create a new object in the cloud storage solution”; [0026] “a second step is typically required to move the resulting files into long-term storage such as a cloud-based object store”; [0049]-[0051] “an update to an object in a database managed by the database system is received at the database system… a backup of database information to a cloud storage solution is automatically performed by the application code in the database system based at least on the applicable rows and columns”).
in response to the request, (see Hempelmann, [0002] “sending a request, using a REST call, to create a new object in the cloud storage solution”; [0026] “a second step is typically required to move the resulting files into long-term storage such as a cloud-based object store”; [0049]-[0051] “an update to an object in a database managed by the database system is received at the database system… a backup of database information to a cloud storage solution is automatically performed by the application code in the database system based at least on the applicable rows and columns”) long term storage (LTS) processing the new table to produce LTS data, wherein the LTS processing includes: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
dividing the new table into a set of data segments; and (see Hempelmann, [0051]-[0052] “the backup processes 120 can initiate a backup to the cloud storage 106 using backups 104… performing the backup can include dividing the database object into portions that are operable to be processed in parallel”).
processing the set of data segments in accordance with one or more of indexing, (see Hempelmann, [0035] “Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; [0045] “the database system 102 can include index servers 302 and 304, associated with RDBMS functions, that can make REST calls 308 in order to back up RDBMS table data to the cloud (through the network 108)” - the claim limitations are in an alternative form and one of the alternate limitation is addressed) to produce the LTS data; and (see Hempelmann, [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
a store and compute sub-system that includes third pluralities of computing nodes, wherein a third set of computing nodes of the third pluralities of computing nodes is operable to: (see Hempelmann, [0041] “The cloud storage 106 can include objects 130, where each object 130 corresponds to one backup of an index server. The objects 130 can also serve as a source for data that is replicated to various systems. Object associations 132 can define associations that exist between entries in the objects 130”).
store the LTS data in memory devices of the third set of computing nodes (see Hempelmann, [0054] “in response to receiving an acknowledgement of a successful creation of the new object, REST PUT calls can be sent to the cloud storage solution that include contents of the object for the cloud storage solution to store into the created new object”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of new table, determine and request to store new table, second and third plurality of computing nodes, long term storage, divide new table into data segments, store the LTS data, automated database system and indexes as being disclosed and taught by Hempelmann, in the system taught by Yung to yield the predictable results of effectively transferring data to an external storage system for long term storage (see Hempelmann, [0020] “Besides storing backups in the file system, some systems are also capable of transferring their backup data using a BACKINT interface to external storage providers, such as to run full and incremental backups. In this scenario, the backup data is not written directly into files in the file systems but into named pipes resembling a similar interface. The pipes facilitate the transfer of the backup payload to an external storage system, where the data backup will be stored, as well, in files on disk or even files streamed to tape drives or other media for long-term storage”).
The proposed combination of Yung and Hempelmann does not explicitly teach receive the request and the new table from the query and response sub-system.
However, Prosser discloses query response system and teaches
delivering from query response system (see Prosser, [0190] “Each engine 386-392 within query response system 382 is configured to delivery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of receiving from query and response sub-system as being disclosed and taught by Prosser, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung and Hempelmann to yield the predictable results of optimally processing queries (see Prosser, [0190] “Each engine 386-392 within query response system 382 is configured to delivery query results to user system 384 in response to queries from user system 384 and/or from receiving a user affinity profile 394 associated with user system 394... each of the engines 386-392 responds more optimally to a query from user system 384 by utilizing parameters provided as part of user affinity profile”).
Claim 31 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 1 in a computer-readable medium form (see Yung, [col 11 lines 29-31] “The memory 1410 and storage devices 1420 are computer-readable storage media that may store instructions that implement at least portions of the various embodiments”; [col 11 lines 10-18] “The computing system 1400 may include one or more central processing units ("processors") 1405, memory 1410, input/output devices 1425 (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices, display devices), storage 15 devices 1420 (e.g., disk drives), and network adapters 1430 (e.g., network interfaces) that are connected to an interconnect 1415”) and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 23, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the first set of the first pluralities of computing nodes further (see Yung, [col 11 lines 10-18] “The computing system 1400 may include one or more central processing units ("processors") 1405, memory 1410, input/output devices 1425 (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices, display devices), storage 15 devices 1420 (e.g., disk drives), and network adapters 1430 (e.g., network interfaces) that are connected to an interconnect 1415”) determines to store the new table by at least one of: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”).
an automated database system determination; (see Hempelmann, [0048] “performing automatic backups to the cloud. Method 600 can be performed by the database system 102” - the claim limitations are in an alternative form and one of the alternate limitation is addressed). The motivation for the proposed combination is maintained.
Claim 34 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 23 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 25, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
generating a set of indexes for the set of data segments, wherein an index of the set of indexes is stored in an index section of a data segment of the set of data segments (see Hempelmann, [0035] “Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; [0045] “the database system 102 can include index servers 302 and 304, associated with RDBMS functions, that can make REST calls 308 in order to back up RDBMS table data to the cloud (through the network 108)”). The motivation for the proposed combination is maintained.
Claim 36 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 25 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 21-22 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser further in view of Ranganathan et al. (US 2010/0198855 A1, hereinafter “Ranganathan”).
Regarding claim 21, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the query includes: (see Yung, [col 2 line 54] “possibly nested query”).
… to produce the inner-level partial query results; and (see Yung, [col 9 lines 5-26] “1004, the client controller identifies a top-level data query corresponding to the user request…data queries are typically developed in a hierarchical manner following the structure of the data… builds the hierarchy of data queries that can be expanded from the top-level data query… By submitting the entire hierarchy or a sufficient subset, the client controller receives all the necessary data at once from the server and reduces the number of network trips… receives from the server a corresponding set of results from executing the set of data queries… then saves the set of results into the local database”; [col 6 lines 4-5] “The query generator 702 can traverse the hierarchy in a breadth-first manner or a depth-first manner”).
the root-level query operations configured to process the inner-level partial query results to produce the final result of the query (see Yung, [col 9 lines 5-26] “1004, the client controller identifies a top-level data query corresponding to the user request…data queries are typically developed in a hierarchical manner following the structure of the data… builds the hierarchy of data queries that can be expanded from the top-level data query… By submitting the entire hierarchy or a sufficient subset, the client controller receives all the necessary data at once from the server and reduces the number of network trips… receives from the server a corresponding set of results from executing the set of data queries… then saves the set of results into the local database” ; [col 6 lines 4-5] “The query generator 702 can traverse the hierarchy in a breadth-first manner or a depth-first manner”).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach level three query operations configured to read data from memory and perform initial manipulation of data to produce level three partial query results; level two query operations configured to process the level three partial query results.
However, Ranganathan discloses the query to produce a query plan and teaches
level three query operations configured to read data from memory and perform initial manipulation of data to produce level three partial query results; (see Ranganathan, [0012] “a tree with one root node 208, top-level nodes 210 and lower nodes 212 in the tree that represent the levels of processing steps or operations of the query”; [0018] “Each top-level node 210 may receive one result stream from lower nodes 212 throughout a network cluster for parallelism and load balancing benefits”).
level two query operations configured to process the level three partial query results (see Ranganathan, [0015] “The workstation 204 and the database server 206 may communicate to create a number of consumer sessions 214 in the application 110 with access to parallel result streams from the top-level nodes 210, where the access may be through a number of root nodes 208”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of levels and layers of query as being disclosed and taught by Ranganathan, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of faster extraction and loads (see Ranganathan, [0022] “Exemplary embodiments have many benefits, including providing parallel result streams from a query. In a data warehouse scenario, parallel result streams may be returned from operations such as ETL aggregation queries and data movement queries, resulting in faster extracts and loads”).
Claim 32 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 21 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 22, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann, Prosser and Ranganathan teaches
wherein the query further includes multiple layers of the level two query operations (see Ranganathan, [0012] “The query plan 112 may be stored in a data structure, such as, for example, a tree with one root node 208, top-level nodes 210, lower nodes 212 in the tree that represent the levels of processing steps or operations of the query. These intermediate processing nodes may involve joins, sorts, merges, disk access or other kinds of processing steps or operations. The non-root nodes 210, 212 in the query plan 112 may execute in different database server processes 116 and may, for example, be spread throughout a cluster, in a clustered database architecture”). The motivation for the proposed combination is maintained.
Claim 33 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 22 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 24, 26, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser further in view of Chandrasekar et al. (US 2011/0295817 A1, hereinafter “Chandrasekar”).
Regarding claim 24, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the request to store the new table includes: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”).
… the new table; and (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102).
instructions to perform the LTS processing on the new table (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach instructions to maintain formatting of the new table.
However, Chandrasekar discloses row and column formats and teaches
instructions to maintain formatting of data (see Chandrasekar, [0015] “analyzed to determine the storage format, i.e. whether and/or how to store the rows in row-major or column-major format, and what compression technique to apply”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of formatting of data and data compressions to generate data slabs as being disclosed and taught by Chandrasekar, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of effective analysis of data (see Chandrasekar, [0015] “analyzed to determine the storage format, i.e. whether and/or how to store the rows in row-major or column-major format, and what compression technique to apply, if any. In this way, the column values for a column and particular XML document are separately analyzed to determine a storage format for the rows that hold that XML document's data”).
Claim 35 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 24 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 26, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach compressing pluralities of rows of columnar data of the set of data segments to produce a compressed plurality of rows of columnar data of the data segments; organizing in accordance with columns, the compressed plurality of rows of columnar data to produce a plurality of data slabs; and processing the plurality of data slabs to produce a plurality of long term storage data blocks.
However, Chandrasekar discloses row and column formats and teaches
compressing pluralities of rows of columnar data of the set of data segments to produce a compressed plurality of rows of columnar data of the data segments; (see Chandrasekar, [0043] “a set of rows in a table, data for the rows may be divided among compression units based on columns. Thus, some compression units may store data for a first column of the table in column-major format, some may store data for a second column of the table in column major format”).
organizing in accordance with columns, the compressed plurality of rows of columnar data to produce a plurality of data slabs; and (see Chandrasekar, [0014] “Column-major format has the advantage that it permits better compressibility. The values within a column may have common properties such that, when the values are stored contiguously, the common properties can be exploited using various compression techniques. The major format of a column and the compression technique used, if any, is referred to herein as a storage format”; [0040] “When column values of certain columns in the path table are stored contiguously within a data block, the common properties between the values may be exploited for compression”).
processing the plurality of data slabs to produce (see Chandrasekar, [0014] “Column-major format has the advantage that it permits better compressibility. The values within a column may have common properties such that, when the values are stored contiguously, the common properties can be exploited using various compression techniques. The major format of a column and the compression technique used, if any, is referred to herein as a storage format”) a plurality of long term storage data blocks (see Chandrasekar, [0041] “data in a database is stored persistently in persistent storage units (e.g. data blocks) having one of a set of enumerated sizes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of compressing plurality of rows and data slabs as being disclosed and taught by Chandrasekar, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of effective analysis of data and compression (see Chandrasekar, [0015] “analyzed to determine the storage format, i.e. whether and/or how to store the rows in row-major or column-major format, and what compression technique to apply, if any. In this way, the column values for a column and particular XML document are separately analyzed to determine a storage format for the rows that hold that XML document's data”).
Claim 37 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 26 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 27, 30, 38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser further in view of Leggette et al. (US 2013/0151928 A1, hereinafter “Leggette”).
Regarding claim 27, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach dividing a data segment of the set of data segments into a plurality of data blocks; error encoding the plurality of data blocks to produce a plurality of encoded data blocks; and converting the plurality of encoded data blocks into a plurality of long term storage data blocks.
However, Leggette discloses encoding data slices and teaches
dividing a data segment of the set of data segments into a plurality of data blocks; (see Leggette, [0131] “With the data blocks arranged into the desired sequential order, they are divided into data segments based on the segmenting information”).
error encoding the plurality of data blocks to produce a plurality of encoded data blocks; and (see Leggette, [0095] “The DS error encoding parameters (e.g. or dispersed storage error coding parameters) include data segmenting information (e.g., how many segments data (e.g., a file, a group of files, a data block, etc.) is divided into), segment security information (e.g., per segment encryption, compression, integrity checksum, etc.), error coding information (e.g., pillar width, decode threshold, read threshold, write threshold, etc.), slicing information (e.g., the number of encoded data slices that will be created for each data segment); and slice security information (e.g., per encoded data slice encryption, compression, integrity checksum, etc.)”).
converting the plurality of encoded data blocks into a plurality of long term storage data blocks (see Leggette, [0424] “the transform module 812 dispersed storage error encodes the at least a portion of the temporarily stored data in the pre-dispersed storage error encoded format (e.g., computational slices 816) into a plurality of sets of encoded data slices (e.g., storage slices 818) in accordance with a long-term-storage-orientated dispersed storage error coding function”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of dividing data segments, error encoding the plurality of data blocks, converting the plurality of encoded data into long term storage and forward error correction encoding as being disclosed and taught by Leggette, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of effectively encoding data for the purpose of recovery in the future (see Leggette, [0424] “The long-term-storage-orientated dispersed storage error coding function includes second dispersed storage error coding parameters that prevents the DST unit 806 from recovering, in the pre-dispersed storage error encoded format, the sub-portion of the portion of the temporarily stored data from encoded data slices the DST unit 806 stores and requires retrieval of encoded data slices from multiple DST units 806 of the set of DST units 804 to recover, in the pre-dispersed storage error encoded format, the sub-portion of the portion of the temporarily stored data”).
Claim 38 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 27 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 30, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
… the new table… (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach error encoding the set of data segments of the new table using forward error correction encoding.
However, Leggette discloses encoding data slices and teaches
error encoding the set of data segments of the data blocks using forward error correction encoding (see Leggette, [0187] “The error encoding module 146 encodes the secure data segments in accordance with error correction encoding parameters received as control information 160 from the control module 116. The error correction encoding parameters include identifying an error correction encoding scheme (e.g., forward error correction algorithm”; [0131] “With the data blocks arranged into the desired sequential order, they are divided into data segments based on the segmenting information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of dividing data segments, error encoding the plurality of data blocks, converting the plurality of encoded data into long term storage and forward error correction encoding as being disclosed and taught by Leggette, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of effectively encoding data for the purpose of recovery in the future (see Leggette, [0424] “The long-term-storage-orientated dispersed storage error coding function includes second dispersed storage error coding parameters that prevents the DST unit 806 from recovering, in the pre-dispersed storage error encoded format, the sub-portion of the portion of the temporarily stored data from encoded data slices the DST unit 806 stores and requires retrieval of encoded data slices from multiple DST units 806 of the set of DST units 804 to recover, in the pre-dispersed storage error encoded format, the sub-portion of the portion of the temporarily stored data”).
Claim 41 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 30 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 28-29 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2012/0323929 A1, hereinafter “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 28, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
… the new table… (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach error compressing the set of data segments of the new table in accordance with a global dictionary compression scheme.
However, Kimura discloses encoding data slices and teaches
compressing the set of data segments of the estimated size in accordance with a global dictionary compression scheme (see Kimura, [0090] “the compression associated with the requested estimate size includes one or more of null suppression or global dictionary compression (218)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of compression based on global dictionary compressing scheme, null data compression and run length encoded data as being disclosed and taught by Kimura, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of improving system performance (see Kimura, [0020] “Example techniques discussed herein may provide design strategies for generating system designs that may improve system performance. For example, techniques are discussed for estimating the size of a compressed index that may scale to a large number of indexes. Further, example techniques are discussed for extending physical design tools to provide incorporation of compressed physical design structures”).
Claim 39 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 28 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 29, the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser teaches
wherein the second set of the second pluralities of computing nodes is further operable to (see Hempelmann, [0035] “the database system 102 can be part of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) and data management program… There can be many services that are included in the database system 102, and, in some instances, each service can be responsible for backing up its own data objects (or "objects"). Example services can include servers such as index servers and other servers that store, and provide access to, one or more objects”; Fig. 1 – database system 102) perform the LTS processing on the new table by: (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102, which can also trigger backups 104 (or other requests) that include instructions for establishing an initiation of objects (or definitions thereof) in the cloud storage 106”; [0052] “the database system 102 can directly execute, in parallel for each particular portion of database object, a REST call to the cloud storage solution for the particular portion of the databased object”).
… the new table… (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102).
… the new table… (see Hempelmann, [0037] “for creating new tables in the database system 102).
The proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser does not explicitly teach error compressing the set of data segments of the new table using null data compression; and compressing the set of data segments of the new table using run length encoded data.
However, Kimura discloses encoding data slices and teaches
compressing the set of data segments of the estimated size… using null data compression; and (see Kimura, [0090] “the compression associated with the requested estimate size includes one or more of null suppression or global dictionary compression (218)”).
compressing the set of data segment of the estimated size… using run length encoded data (see Kimura, [0098] “a compression associated with the requested estimate size may include one or more of page-local dictionary encoding or run length encoding (234)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of compression based on global dictionary compressing scheme, null data compression and run length encoded data as being disclosed and taught by Leggette, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Yung, Hempelmann and Prosser to yield the predictable results of improving system performance (see Kimura, [0020] “Example techniques discussed herein may provide design strategies for generating system designs that may improve system performance. For example, techniques are discussed for estimating the size of a compressed index that may scale to a large number of indexes. Further, example techniques are discussed for extending physical design tools to provide incorporation of compressed physical design structures”).
Claim 40 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 29 in a computer-readable medium form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US Publication No. US 2018/0182049 A1 (Oberle) teaches that the query can be represented as a plurality of nodes in a hierarchical relationship, with nodes being related to other nodes (such as in parent-child relationships) and further teaches the database fields are analyzed up through the hierarchy to determine whether they are included in the root node of the hierarchy, representing the output of the query (which can be a database view).
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 VAISHALI SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-8532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30 AM to 4:00 PM).
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.
/VAISHALI SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
