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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP13461545.9, filed on 08/30/2013.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/14/2026 has been entered.
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) 14, 17-19, 21, 24, 27-29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0271838; Pub. Date: Oct. 25, 2012) in view of Dettinger et al. (US Patent No.: 8,326,852; Date of Patent: Dec. 4, 2012) and Transier et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0011144; Pub. Date: Jan. 12, 2012).
Regarding independent claim 14,
Whang discloses a computer implemented method for improving efficiency and reducing computational complexity of executing queries in a database using an electronic computing device, the method comprising:(a) identifying, by a comparison of sizes of a plurality of data fields of a plurality of data properties, a first data property from the plurality of data properties to be used as representative data of a query result, See FIG. 2 & Paragraph [0039], (Disclosing a system for retrieving only "k" data elements having a largest or smallest key value from a dataset in a time-linearly proportional to the size of the dataset. Step S4 of FIG. 2 illustrates a comparison between key value sizes to determine a smallest value, i.e. a computer implemented method for improving efficiency and reducing computational complexity of executing queries in a database using an electronic computing device, the method comprising:(a) identifying, by a comparison of sizes of a plurality of data fields of a plurality of data properties (e.g. FIG. 2, step S4), a first data property from the plurality of data properties to be used as representative data of a query result (e.g. the query retrieval process retrieves only elements having the smallest key values from a dataset),)
Whang does not disclose the step wherein the first data property has both the smallest size of data field and unique value in the plurality of data properties;
Dettinger not discloses the step wherein the first data property has [a] unique value in the plurality of data properties; See Col. 3, lines 14-32, (Disclosing a system for determining query entities in physical tables for an abstract database. The system may process a query entity such as an SQL statement by identifying selection of an entity field from fields of the physical database table and identifying a selection of one or more unique values of a field of the plurality of fields of the physical database table, i.e. wherein the first data property has [a] unique value in the plurality of data properties;)
The examiner notes that while Whang discloses a process of selecting a smallest key of a plurality of keys, the process of Whang does not explicitly disclose the first data property having a "unique value". The method of Dettinger describes a search process that selects unique values. The proposed combination of Whang (e.g. selecting a smallest key) and Dettinger (e.g. selecting a unique value) would describe a first property having a smallest size and having a unique value from among a plurality of properties having unique values.
Whang and Dettinger are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Whang to include the method of assessing unique values of selected columns for query execution as disclosed by Dettinger. Col. 10, lines 55-67 of Dettinger discloses that query entities are created for the benefit of users who require access to a specific set of data records that may be generated based on column usage statistics. This allows an administrator to determine which columns are likely to be important for a particular query entity.
Whang-Dettinger does not disclose step (b) executing, using one or more database access threads, a database query on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query;
and (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records identified by the one or more database access threads in (b) as values of a result of the database query.
Transier discloses step (b) executing, using one or more database access threads, a database query on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query; See Paragraph [0016], (Disclosing a system for concurrently generating a local hash table storing key-index pairs which are merged by a plurality of execution threads to produce a set of disjoint result hash tables. The system comprises a plurality of processing units 105, 110, 115 configure to concurrently execute a plurality of execution threads to build the index hash table data structures. Query engine 150 may execute a parallel aggregation operation to access database 155.) See Paragraph [0021], (A user may submit a query to DBS 210 which includes executing by evaluating the parameters of the query statement and accessing database 225 as needed to produce a result 230, i.e. (b) executing, using one or more database access threads, a database query on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query; (e.g. query engine 150 utilizes a plurality of execution threads to resolve queries).)
and (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records identified by the one or more database access threads in (b) as values of a result of the database query. See Paragraph [0031], (The plurality of execution threads running in parallel may generate a local hash table or hash map. Note [0027] wherein the generated index hash map generates key-index pairs by mapping each distinct key to a unique integer.) See Paragraph [0022], (The index hash map structure may be used to track intermediate results retrieved based on the input query, i.e. (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys (e.g. execution threads produce hash maps comprising key-index pairs. Execution threads are employed for executing queries by query engine 150) and the set of data records identified by the one or more database access threads in (b) as values of a result of the database query (e.g. the index hash map comprises key-index pairs aggregated as part of executing a user-provided SQL query).
Whang, Dettinger and Transier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Whang-Dettinger to include the method of generating hash tables in parallel as disclosed by Transier. Paragraph [0018] of Transier discloses that the use of a parallel computation environment allows the system to concurrently execute multiple threads for inserting and retrieving data in tables as well as computing an aggregate in a parallel computation environment. This represents an efficient use of resources for computing query results.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
As discussed above with claim 14, Whang-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
Dettinger further discloses the step wherein the plurality of data records are stored in the database comprising multiple data structures. See Col. 7, lines 19-28, (Data is stored in a physical database according to database abstraction model 148 which provides a set of definitions for logical fields 208 and query entities 225 which are objects of database abstraction model 148 used for storing data and configured with a particular data structure, i.e. wherein the plurality of data records are stored in the database comprising multiple data structures (e.g. the plurality of query entities and definitions for logical fields represent different data structures).)
Regarding dependent claim 18,
As discussed above with claim 17, Whang-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
Dettinger further discloses the step wherein at least one data structure comprises definitions of data object values of at least one data set, wherein a definition of a data object value comprises (i) a data object identifier, and (ii) a unique identifier of a data property that the data object value is assigned to. See FIG. 3 & Col. X, lines Y-Z, (FIG. 3 illustrates a table 300 comprising a plurality of columns including a “PATIENT_ID” column 310 for storing identification numbers of patients being tested, i.e. wherein at least one data structure comprises definitions of data object values of at least one data set, wherein a definition of a data object value comprises (i) a data object identifier (e.g. a database table comprises columns and rows wherein rows represent individual records having values including an identifier) , and (ii) a unique identifier of a data property that the data object value is assigned to. (e.g. columns of a table are associated with a name or label such as “PATIENT_ID”, “VISIT_NUMBER”, etc.))
Regarding dependent claim 19,
As discussed above with claim 18, WHANG-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
WHANG further discloses the step wherein the at least one data structure has a plurality of data properties such that at least two of the plurality of data properties have different data sizes. See FIG. 2 & Paragraph [0039], (Step S4 of FIG. 2 illustrates a comparison between key value sizes to determine a smallest value, i.e. wherein the at least one data structure has a plurality of data properties such that at least two of the plurality of data properties have different data sizes (e.g. the method of WHANG compares sizes of keys to determine a smallest size, therefore the keys have different sizes).)
Regarding dependent claim 21,
As discussed above with claim 18, Whang-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
Transier further discloses the step wherein (c) is performed in multiple threads in parallel for storing data from the set of data records identified in (b) and the first data property identified in (a). See Paragraph [0016], (Disclosing a system for concurrently generating a local hash table storing key-index pairs which are merged by a plurality of execution threads to produce a set of disjoint result hash tables. The system comprises a plurality of processing units 105, 110, 115 configure to concurrently execute a plurality of execution threads to build the index hash table data structures. Note [0027] wherein the index hash is constructed in parallel by processing key-index pairs to facilitate data lookup operations, i.e. wherein (c) is performed in multiple threads in parallel for storing data from the set of data records identified in (b) and the first data property identified in (a) (e.g. the system of Transier generates a hash table in parallel).
Regarding independent claim 24,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 14 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 27,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 17 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 28,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 18 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 29,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 19 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 31,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 21 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whang in view of Dettinger and Transier as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bestgen et al. (US PGPUB No. 2009/0164412; Pub. Date: Jun. 25, 2009).
Regarding dependent claim 15,
As discussed above with claim 14, Whang-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
Whang-Dettinger-Transier does not disclose the step wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property.
Bestgen discloses the step wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property. See FIGs. 4-5 & Paragraph [0046], (FIG. 5 illustrates a method of performing a query via a query optimizer wherein a query may include sub-queries containing user-defined functions, references to tables, etc. The query optimizer may determine the set of attributes from each of the operations in the query and prepare a query that retrieves all of the attributes in a single pass and perform a union of all retrieved attributes. The method may include performing operations in parallel to execute the query, i.e. wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest and unique value of the first data property (e.g. the method of Bestgen comprises performing a UNION of a plurality of sub-queries wherein the subqueries retrieve attribute information.).)
Whang, Dettinger, Transier and Bestgen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Whang-Dettinger-Transier to include the method of processing sub-queries as disclosed by Bestgen. Paragraph [0046] of Bestgen discloses that the system is capable of processing the sub-queries such that all the relevant attributes may be retrieved in a single pass and allows for performing query operations in parallel, representing an improvement in resource usage and processing time.
Regarding dependent claim 25,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 15 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHANG in view of Dettinger and Transier as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2003/0229640; Pub. Date; Dec. 11, 2003).
Regarding dependent claim 16,
As discussed above with claim 14, WHANG-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
WHANG-Dettinger-Transier does not disclose the step wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records.
Carlson discloses the step wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records. See Paragraph [0091], (Disclosing a method for processing queries utilizing a dynamically-populated query buffer to facilitate handling of at least a portion of a database query in parallel. The method comprises utilizing a query buffer to facilitate parallel handling of at least a portion of a database query. A query execution tree 50 represents an entire query in a tree structure comprising a plurality of query nodes representing operations of the query.) See Paragraph [0091], (A query node may comprise an Intersect Node configured to combine two sorted result sets "A" and "B" wherein the result contains tuples in both "A" and "B" without duplicates, i.e. an INTERSECT operation performed on different data sets, i.e. wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries (e.g. an INTERSET node may be used to combine datasets retrieved by other queries) related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records (e.g. the sorted result sets A and B).)
WHANG, Dettinger, Transier and Carlson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of WHANG-Dettinger-Transier to include the method of processing queries according to query nodes as disclosed by Carlson. Paragraph [0140] of Carlson discloses that the query buffer provides the benefit of allowing multiple threads to consume records in parallel to accelerate the execution of query operations. This represents an improvement in resource utilization and processing time.
Regarding dependent claim 26,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 16 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHANG in view of Dettinger and Transier as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bunker et al. (US Patent No.: 8,364,623; Date of Patent: Jan. 29, 2013).
Regarding dependent claim 20,
As discussed above with claim 18, WHANG-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
WHANG-Dettinger-Transier does not disclose the step of creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets.
Bunker discloses the step of creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets. See Col. 6, lines 13-15, (Disclosing a system for generating mind maps comprising receiving a request to generate a graphical summarization of relationships of a particular entity associated with an information technology infrastructure. The system comprises systems management tool 150 configured to generate a mind map by retrieving information on entities and relationships from one or more databases.) See FIG. 4, (FIG. 4 illustrates a mind map comprising a plurality of nodes and edges indicating relationships between information retrieved from a plurality of databases, i.e. creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets.)
WHANG, Dettinger, Transier and Bunker are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of WHANG-Dettinger-Transier to include the method of generating mind maps from data retrieved from one or more sources of data as disclosed by Bunker. Col. 3, lines 10-25 of Bunker discloses that the system includes authorization privileges for different users which allows a user to view more detailed information presented in the mind map according to a user's permissions. This ensures that only authorized users are able to perform certain actions with regard to the IT system which prevents actions that could potentially result in inadvertent system downtime or data loss.
Regarding dependent claim 30,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 20 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHANG in view of Dettinger and Transier as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Dugan et al. (US PGPUB No.: 2002/0083166; Pub. Date: Jun. 27, 2002).
Regarding dependent claim 22,
As discussed above with claim 21, WHANG-Dettinger-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
WHANG-Dettinger-Transier does not disclose the step of wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number.
Dugan discloses the step of wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number. D See Paragraph [0090], (Disclosing a system for managing a plurality of execution threads. A thread manager object manages the plurality of threads using a unique identifier as a key that can be used for thread identification. A hash table of key-value pairs may be consulted to determine if a key is recognized, meaning that the service thread has been allocated for a call instance. If a threshold value of thread instances is exceeded, the system may attempt to generate an additional thread instance for the requested service, i.e. wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number (e.g. threads are associated with keys, therefore if a number of threads is exceeded then a number of keys is exceeded).)
WHANG, Dettinger, Transier and Dugan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data service and management. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of WHANG-Dettinger-Transier to include the method of managing service threads according to key-value pairs as disclosed by Dugan. Paragraph [0058] of Dugan discloses that the management of data objects and services improves performance because service processing, call processing and facility processing operate in a homogeneous platform.
Regarding dependent claim 32,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 22 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHANG in view of Dettinger, Transier and Dugan as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Joshi et al. (US Patent No. 7,043,494; Date of Patent: May 9, 2006).
Regarding dependent claim 23,
As discussed above with claim 22, WHANG-Dettinger-Transier-Dugan discloses all of the limitations.
WHANG-Dettinger-Transier-Dugan does not disclose the step wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150.
Joshi discloses the step wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150. See Col. 4, lines 1-25, (Disclosing a method of managing a combined hash table/bucket for facilitating fast, deterministic, memory-efficient exact match look-ups on extremely large tables. The method includes determining a maximum number of keys "T" to be stored in the hash table corresponding to an application-specific amount, i.e. wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150 (e.g. the value of "T" may be any number required by the application, which would include the range of 75-150).)
WHANG, Dettinger, Transier, Dugan and Joshi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data storage and retrieval. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of WHANG-Dettinger-Transier-Dugan to include the method of processing a predetermined amount of keys as disclosed by Joshi. Col. 5, lines 54-65 of Joshi disclose that the system is capable of providing a CAM to handle situations in which neither the hash table nor overflow bucket table can store any additional keys by storing additional keys.
Regarding dependent claim 33,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 23 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have modified the scope of the claimed invention, which necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
