DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Applicant has cancelled claims 1-20. Applicant has added claims 21-34. Claims 21-34 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 21-34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 and 28 recite limitations “execute, in substantial parallel, a ….”. Examiner recommends to amend the limitations to recite “in substantially parallel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “favorable” in claim 21 and 28, the term “best” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “favorable” and “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The two trainings results are rendered indefinite by the term favorable, and the known position is rendered indefinite by the term best.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 21-34 are allowable once the above rejection is overcome.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Zhang generally teaches storing database input data for training the decision tree, the input data comprising a plurality of feature values corresponding to a plurality of features; generating a particular node of the plurality of decision nodes by: selecting a subset of the plurality of features and a subset of the input data; using one or more queries to the database system, for each feature of the subset of the plurality of features, calculating an information gain associated with the feature based on the subset of the input data; identifying a particular feature of the subset of the plurality of features associated with the highest information gain; associating the particular node with the particular feature, wherein the particular node causes the decision tree to branch based on the particular feature.
Syed generally teaches optimizing SQL statements by rewriting them or enforcing static execution plans. This would engender reduction in time and space complexities.
The cited prior art when considered individually or in combination does not disclose the claimed invention. An updated prior art search was conducted and no prior anticipates or obviously teaches the claimed invention as recited in the dependent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-1521. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM- 3:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALEKSANDR KERZHNER can be reached at 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165