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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“A method of managing a database stored to a data store on non-transitory computer readable storage, the method comprising:
receiving a definition of a partitioning scheme, the definition of the partitioning scheme having associated therewith a partitioning scheme identifier, a partition-defining query, and an indication of a primary table to be partitioned;
receiving a definition of a first table of the database, the first table being the primary table, the definition of the first table having associated therewith at least first and second partition types by which the first table is to be partitioned, the second partition type being a query type for which the partitioning scheme identifier is passed as a parameter;
receiving a definition of one or more second tables, each said second table being defined so as to have associated therewith a partition type by which the respective second table is to be partitioned, the partition type of each said second table being a query type for which the partitioning scheme identifier is passed as a parameter,
wherein the partition-defining query includes one or more outer queries conditioned on an innermost query, the innermost query being a query on the first table, each of the one or more outer queries being a query on a table in the database other than the first table;
partitioning the first table into a plurality of partitions based on the first partition type,
wherein each of the plurality of partitions is located in a separate file or other storage structure across the non-transitory computer readable storage of the data store;
in response to an operation performed on the database, executing the partition-defining query and, based on an outcome of the executed partition-defining query, updating the database including making a change to a partition of the first table and to a partition of each said second table.”
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite similar subject matter.
This is a mental process because the claimed invention receives data, wherein the data contains defined elements, partitions a table based on instructions, and updates a database in response to a change to a partition. A human being equipped with pen and paper or a generic machine is capable of performing these data analysis steps.
The additional elements in the claims include multiple steps of receiving definitions, a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (claim 9), and “a memory” coupled to a “hardware processor” (claim 15).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
“Receiving” a data definition appears to be a data gathering step and is thus mere insignificant pre-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “memory” coupled to a “hardware processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They appear to be generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “memory” coupled to a “hardware processor” is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “receiving” a data definition appears to be a mere data gathering step, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity data gathering and is well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16- 20 are directed towards additional limitations that further define data types or further describe data analyses. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muniswamy-Reddy et al. (US Patent 9,489,443), in view of Gupta et al. (US Patent 7,356,542), and further in view of Baer et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0109377).
As to claim 1, Muniswamy teaches a method of managing a database stored to a data store on non-transitory computer readable storage, the method comprising:
receiving a definition of a partitioning scheme, the definition of the partitioning scheme having associated therewith a partitioning scheme identifier, a partition-defining query, and an indication of a primary table to be partitioned (see Muniswamy 20:11-32. Muniswamy shows definitions of a partitioning scheme. Partitions include a partitioning scheme identifier (the Partition ID value of Muniswamy), a partition defining query (message ID values with certain content), and an indication of tables with partitioned content values. Muniswamy further discusses how partition IDs are unique in 26:16-34. Also see 17:21-37);
receiving a definition of a first table of the database, the first table being the primary table, the definition of the first table having associated therewith at least first and second partition types by which the first table is to be partitioned, the second partition type being a query type for which the partitioning scheme identifier is passed as a parameter (see Muniswamy 17:21-37. The Create Table function, which defines a table, accepts several parameters, including any “partition identifiers” (plural). As noted above, the partition identifiers are associated with types of partitions and identify partition schemes, see 20:11-32);
receiving a definition of one or more second tables, each said second table being defined so as to have associated therewith a partition type by which the respective second table is to be partitioned, the partition type of each said second table being a query type for which the partitioning scheme identifier is passed as a parameter (see Muniswamy 17:21-37. The Create Table function, which defines a table, accepts several parameters, including any “partition identifiers” (plural). As noted above, the partition identifiers are associated with types of partitions and identify partition schemes, see 20:11-32. As noted in 18:37-51, multiple tables may be created in Muniswamy),
…
partitioning the first table into a plurality of partitions based on the first partition type (see Muniswamy 20:11-32 for an example of a table that has been partitioned in a defined manner),
wherein each of the plurality of partitions is located in a separate file or other storage structure across the non-transitory computer-readable storage of the data store (see Muniswamy 2:66-3:4 and 20:11-32. The partitions may be stored in separate “other storage structures” that may be located apart from one another); and
in response to an operation performed on the database, executing the partition defining query (see Muniswamy 17:21-37. A command is received for execute a partition defining query).
Muniswamy does not explicitly teach:
wherein the partition-defining query includes one or more outer queries conditioned on an innermost query, the innermost query being a query on the first table, each of the one or more outer queries being a query on a table in the database other than the first table;
in response to an operation performed on the database, executing the partition defining query and, based on an outcome of the executed partition-defining query, updating the database including making a change to a partition of the first table and to a partition of each said second table ;
Gupta teaches:
receiving a definition of a partitioning scheme, the definition of the partitioning scheme having associated therewith an indication of a primary table to be partitioned (see 13:39-59 and 14:3-35. A partitioning query is received that includes an indication of a primary table to be partitioned);
wherein the partition-defining query includes one or more outer queries conditioned on an innermost query, the innermost query being a query on the first table, each of the one or more outer queries being a query on a table in the database other than the first table (see 13:39-59 and 14:3-35. There exist both inner and outer queries of a first and second table);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Muniswamy by the teachings of Gupta because both references are directed towards managing partitions. Gupta simply provides to Muniswamy additional methods of generating partitions, which will increase the ability of users of Muniswamy to customize the partitions that they desire.
Baer teaches:
in response to an operation performed on the database, executing the partition defining query and, based on an outcome of the executed partition-defining query, updating the database including making a change to a partition of the first table and to a partition of each said second table (see Baer paragraph [0055]. Baer shows that one may perform “partition maintenance” by changing the logical shape as well as physical attributes of a partition based on a query. Also see Baer paragraph [0068] and Figure 4, which explicitly show that a database may be updated as a result of a partition-defining query received via a command, or operation. Also see Baer paragraphs [0055], [0068], and Figure 4. Based on a command, a partition-defining query is executed. This can include executing operations to that provide specific configurations to a first and second partition. As noted in paragraph [0057], such commands include the ability to “[change] the logical shape as well as physical attributes of a partition” as part of “partition maintenance.” Paragraph [0057] include commands such as alter, move, split, and merge, along with filter expressions, all of which may be used to change multiple partitions in a statement. Paragraph [0081] discusses how a partition maintenance statement may result in “altered tables or partitions.” Thus, multiple partitions and tables may be altered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Muniswamy by the teachings of Baer because both references are directed towards managing partitions. Baer simply provides to Muniswamy additional methods of updating partitions, which will increase the ability of users of Muniswamy to have dynamic partitions that can react to changes in user needs.
As to claim 2, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first partition type is a range or list type partition (see Muniswamy 20:11-32)
As to claim 3, Muniswamy as modified by Baer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein two or more second tables are included in the database (see Muniswamy 18:37-51), and
wherein the partition-defining query is nested such that a first outcome of a first query on one of the second tables is conditioned on an outcome of the innermost query (see Gupta 13:39-59 and 14:3-35), and
such that a second outcome on a second query on another one of the second tables is conditioned on the first outcome (see Baer Figure 4 and paragraph [0068], which show partitions are conditioned on a query outcome of a range specification).
As to claim 4, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each definition of each first table is provided in a respective create table statement (see Muniswamy 17:21-37).
As to claim 6, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the operation is an insert or update data operation (see Muniswamy 3:5-13).
As to claim 7, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the operation is an archive and/or purge operation where at least some data from the first and second tables is to be archived and/or purged (see Muniswamy 3:5-13)
As to claim 8, Muniswamy as modified by Baer teaches the method of claim 7,
wherein a first set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a first partition of the first table and a second set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a counterpart partition of the second table(s) (see Baer paragraphs [0020], [0053], and Figure 4. Notably, Baer teaches wherein rows may be excluded, or purged, from any number of partitions based on a command to exclude rows).
As to claims 9 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 10 and 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 11 and 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
As to claims 13 and 19, see the rejection of claim 7.
As to claims 14 and 20, see the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muniswamy-Reddy et al. (US Patent 9,489,443), in view of Gupta et al. (US Patent 7,356,542), and further in view of Baer et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0109377), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0076094).
As to claim 5, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 1.
Muniswamy does not clearly teach wherein changes are made to the second table(s) provided that a flag indicates that changes are to be cascaded thereto.
Sasaki teaches wherein changes are made to the second table(s) provided that a flag indicates that changes are to be cascaded thereto (see paragraph [0090]. Sasaki shows cascade download processing in view of a flag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Muniswamy by the teachings of Sasaki because both references are directed towards managing data. Sasaki simply provides to Muniswamy additional methods of reflecting changes in data, which will ensure that users of Muniswamy maintain databases with updated data.
As to claim 8, Muniswamy as modified teaches the method of claim 7.
Muniswamy does not clearly teach wherein a first set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a first partition of the first table and a second set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a counterpart partition of the second table(s).
Sasaki teaches wherein a first set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a first partition of the first table and a second set of data is to be archived and/or purged from a counterpart partition of the second table(s) (see paragraph [0110]. Data may be deleted if a reference exists between object data and related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Muniswamy by the teachings of Sasaki because both references are directed towards managing data. Sasaki simply provides to Muniswamy additional methods of reflecting changes in data, which will ensure that users of Muniswamy maintain databases with updated data.
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muniswamy-Reddy et al. (US Patent 9,489,443), in view of Gupta et al. (US Patent 7,356,542), in view of Baer et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0109377), and further in view of Liu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0231964).
As to claim 18, Muniswamy teaches the system of claim 15.
Muniswamy does not teach wherein updating includes automatically propagating the operation to a corresponding partition of each said second table,
The corresponding partition of each said second table being identified by a shared partition identifier with the particular partition of the first table .
Liu teaches wherein updating includes automatically propagating the operation to a corresponding partition of each said second table (see paragraphs [0037] and [0043]. Operations, such as delete operations, may be propagated to other partitions),
The corresponding partition of each said second table being identified by a shared partition identifier with the particular partition of the first table (see paragraphs [0037] and [0043]. Other partitions are identified by a partition ID that is shared with a first partition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Muniswamy by the teachings of Liu because both references are directed towards managing partitions. Liu simply provides to Muniswamy additional methods of managing partition updates, which will increase the efficiency and reliability of certain partition operations, including delete operations (see Liu paragraphs [0012]-[0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to arguments made under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that “In this case the following database specific operations do not “recite” a judicial exception and are instead to be analyzed under Prong 2.”
Applicant then lists the limitations “partitioning the first table into a plurality of partitions based on the first partition type, wherein each of the plurality of partitions is located in a separate file or other storage structure across the non-transitory computer readable storage of the data store; in response to an operation performed on the database, executing the partition-defining query and, based on an outcome of the executed partition-defining query, updating the database including making a change to a partition of the first table and to a partition of each said second table.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that both of these elements do recite a judicial exception. Notably, a human being with a generic computer can perform a step of partitioning a first table, wherein each of the partitions is located in a storage structure on a computer readable storage. A human being equipped with a generic computer may also execute a partition-defining query in response to any sort of operation performed on a database and then update the database including making a change to a partition.
Thus, the claims do contain mental process, or data analysis, steps.
Applicant adds that “In particular, Applicant notes that one cannot practically perform partitioning of a database in the human mind. One also cannot execute a partition-defining query mentally or updating the database as required by the claims. These elements are accordingly assessed under Prong 2 (not prong 1) and they integrate any otherwise judicially recited subject matter into a [practical] application. Accordingly, the independent claims are not "directed to" patent ineligible subject matter under the Alice test.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C,
The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 1-3 further elaborate on the idea that a claim may still be directed towards an abstract idea despite the use of a generic machine. Thus, though the claims may not be performed wholly in a human mind, defining a partition query, partitioning a database based on a first partition type, and executing a partitioning query is a logical analysis that may be performed by human with a generic computer.
Applicant argues that “While the Examiner is correct that "archiving and purging" are not recited in the independent claims. They are recited in the dependent claims and the Examiner's attention is directed to dependent claims 7, 13, and 19. The Examiner is also reminded that "the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement" for an improvement to be reflected in the claim. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). In this case, the architecture (the use of the "partition-defining query") that is recited in the independent claim enables the benefits (as discussed in the specification and highlighted below) that are expressly called for in connection with the archiving and purging elements of dependent claims 7, 13, and 19.”
In response to this argument, Applicant is correct that the improvement does not need to be explicitly recited in the claims. However, the functionality that causes the improvement is required to be recited in the claims. When an improvement is explicitly described as result from an archive and a purge operation, and an archive operation and a purge operation are not claimed the independent claims, the independent claims do not reflect functionality that leads to the improvement.
Applicant has not identified an improvement that results from the use of the claimed “partition-defining query” without relying upon the purge and archive functionality. As such, Applicant’s argument that the use of a partition defining query, in and of itself, is not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments regarding “the purged and/or archived data” limitation reflecting an improvement are addressed below.
Applicant cites paragraphs [0054] of the specification, then argues that “In other words, the specification describes how data consistency is an issue for partition-level operations because the specification expressly provides that "operations might render data from other related tables less useful and/or with a questionable meaning." This is a downside of partition level operations. The instant application addresses this through the use of the specifically claimed "partition-defining query" (and the operations associated with that query).”
In response to this argument, it is noted that paragraph [0054] then states that “in existing database systems, this residual data is dealt with manually, which is potentially time-consuming and resource intensive.” This implies that the any improved solution for purging operations is automating what would otherwise be a manual activity.
In 2106.05(a), section I, the MPEP indicates that a mere automation of an otherwise manual process may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05 (I), example iii. Under the heading “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.”)
It is noted that the “purge” operations appears to be capable of being performed by a human being equipped with a generic computer. “Purging” or deleting data is a mental process step. An improved mental process step remains a mental process and patent ineligible.
Additionally, it is noted that neither the purge nor archive step is claimed in the independent claims. Instead, the independent claims merely refer to “an operation performed on the database.” Nothing in Applicant’s cited portion of the specification indicates an improvement is provided for any operation whatsoever on a database; rather, the improvement listed in paragraph [0054] appears to be specific to “purge” operations.
Neither the “purge” or “archive” operation is claimed separately. Rather, they are only claimed in dependent claims wherein the operation is one of “purging” OR “archiving.” Because “purging” has been evaluated as a mental process step and does not appear to provide a practical application nor significantly more beyond the mental process, the rejection for claims 7-8, 13-14, and 19-20 remain. It is noted that archiving is not claimed separately (let alone in the independent claim) and applicant has included no citations or arguments specific to the archiving step.
Applicant argues that “The claimed techniques provides an improvement over these approaches by using a partition-defining query. With this query one table is designated as a primary table and one or more secondary tables are partitioned by reference to the same scheme identifier ("partitioning scheme identifier") through a query-type partition (the "a query type"). When the partition- defining query is then executed in response to a database operation, the engine uses its outcome to coordinate partition assignments and changes across the primary table and each related secondary table simultaneously. This is discussed in paragraphs 94-98 where the specification goes through an example of how the DB engine evaluates the partition-defining query during INSERT/UPDATE operations to route rows into matching partitions across multiple tables. This is an improvement over: 1) row-by-row operations; 2) and traditional partition level operation as explained in connection with paragraphs 52-54.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that neither “insert” nor “update” operations are claimed in the independent claim. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Additionally, it is noted that while cited paragraphs [0094]-[0098] of the specification provide functional details of the claimed data insert and data update operation, nothing in the cited paragraphs appears to discuss a technical problem in the existing art that is solved or improved upon through the use of “insert” or “update” commands.
Applicant states that “In other words, the specifically claimed technique operates to restore the efficiency advantage provided by partition level operations in multi-table scenarios. It does this by using a coordinated partition-level operation to affect partitions across all related tables. This is accomplished via the partition-defining query that is introduced in the specification and repeatedly referenced throughout the claims.”
As noted above, the only improvement shown by Applicant in paragraph [0054] of the specification relies upon purge operations specifically. Purge operations are not exclusively claimed anywhere in the claims, let alone in the independent claims, which merely requires acting upon “any operation” that may be performed upon a database. Additionally, the improvement provided by “purge” operations in partitions, in view of paragraph [0054], appears as if it may be simply automating what would otherwise be a manual activity. “Purging” data is additionally still be directed towards mental process steps that may be performed by a person with a generic machine. An improved mental process remains a mental process, albeit improved.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “As discussed in Applicant's prior response, the claims provide for improvements in database computer systems. In particular, claimed techniques provide a specific technological solution to a technical problem of maintaining data consistency across multiple related database tables during partition-level operations such as archiving and purging. The claims are patent eligible under § 101 because they are directed to a specific improvement in database computer technology rather than an attempt to monopolize an abstract idea using generic computer components. The claims integrate any otherwise judicially excepted subject matter into a "practical application" by providing a concrete solution to the technical problem of conditional multi-table partitioning, which results in measurable performance improvements including faster partition-level operations compared to row-by-row processing, reduced database overhead, etc.”
Applicant is requested to cite the portion of the specification that indicates that “measurable performance improvements including faster partition-level operations compared to row-by-row processing, reduced database overhead, etc” occur in response to “an operation performed on the database,” wherein “an operation” is not defined in the independent claims.
Response to arguments made under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that “Gupta does not discuss a partition-defining query that one or more outer queries conditioned on an innermost query, the innermost query being a query on the first table, each of the one or more outer queries being a query on a table in the database other than the first table. The citation provided to Gupta generally relates to different types of joins. Inner or outer joins (or other types of joins) are not inner and outer queries as required by independent claim 1.”
Applicant argues that “However, the structure of this query is different than that required by independent claim 1 because the specifically claimed query structure does not merely contain multiple SELECT statements (for example). Instead, the claims sets forth a specific structural and semantic relationship between the inner/outer queries and to the specific tables those parts of the partition-defining query operate on.”
In response to this argument, Gupta does teach inner and outer queries to the extent claimed. All of the commands in the cited portion of Gupta are partition-defining queries that contain an initial clause, or “outer query,” that relies upon (or is conditioned on), a second clause, or “innermost query,” wherein each clause depends in part on data from different table (see Gupta 13:39-59 and 14:3-35).
The only “specific” “structural and semantic relationship” are the existence of an outer query conditioned on an inner query, where the outer and inner query operate at least in part on different tables. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification, such as particular query formats or structures, receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “As set forth above, the partition-defining query includes an innermost query that operates on the primary table. This is the table designated as the "primary table" of the partitioning scheme. The partition-defining query also includes one or more outer queries, each of which operates on a different table than that first table. The partition-defining query further defines that the outer queries are "conditioned on" the innermost query. This "conditioned on" structure is what allows the partitioning technique of claim 1 coordinate partition techniques across the first table and each related secondary table. This approach is different form the PARTITIONED OUTER JOIN statement (and other queries) that are shown in Gupta.”
Applicant continues, arguing that “This is because Gupta's queries do not operate such that the outer query's results depend on the inner query (i.e., they are not "conditioned on"). For example, there is no comparison construct where the right-hand side is the inner query's result set.”
In response to this argument, the queries shown in Gupta 13:39-59 and 14:3-35 do require a first selecting subquery that depends on the results of a second subquery, wherein each subquery refers, at least in part, to different tables. Because the first subquery, such as “TIMES V2 LEFT OUTER JOIN SALES V1 PARTITION BY (prod) ID” depends on results from “V1.time_id=V2.time_id”, the first subquery is “conditioned on” the second, innermost subquery. Both include references to different tables. This analysis is true in the other cited queries of Gupta.
Thus, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Gupta does teach the claimed subject matter to the extent claimed.
Applicant adds that “Second, the innermost query has a structure that operates specifically on the table that has been designated as the primary table, and each outer query operates on a different table whose partition assignments, for example, follow the primary table's partitioning.”
Examiner notes that nothing in the claims requires that ” each outer query operates on a different table whose partition assignments, for example, follow the primary table's partitioning.”
Examiner reminds Applicant that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “The Office Action also relies on Baer of the last element of claim 1 in which the database is updated. Applicant respectfully submits that Baer does not provide the requisite teachings because it does not: 1) teach or suggest using a defined partition-defining query; 2) teach or suggest performing coordinated updates that span multiple tables driven by such a query; and 3) teach or suggest multi-table coordination. The Office Action cites to paragraphs 55, 68, and Figure 4 as being relevant to the last element of claim 1. However, these paragraphs merely discuss generic partition operations. There is no discussion of coordinated updates across tables.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Baer shows altering defining partitions with database statements (see Baer [0068]) across multiple tables (see paragraphs [0068] and [0081]). Baer teaches the subject matter to the extent claimed.
Applicant is reminded that any unclaimed features regarding such “multi-table coordination” receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “However, the mere statement in Baer that "When the processing of a partition maintenance statement results in one or more new or altered tables or partitions" does not teach or suggest "making a change to a partition of the first table and to a partition of each said second table." In other words, both of these changes are triggered by the same partition-defining query that includes the specific structural features discussed above. Baer does not make changes to partitions through such a technique.”
In response to this argument, Gupta is relied upon to show a partition defining query that includes the specific structural features. Baer is relied upon to show that partition defining queries may affect multiple partitions. The references combined teach the claimed subject matter to the extent claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights