DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on September 15, 2025.
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 15, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 15, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. See objection to the Specification below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pages 7-25, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 101 and USC § 103 of amended independent claim 1, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of the Applicant Arguments and Remarks “The claims are integrated to a practical application because they:
1. Solve a specific technological problem: The inability of conventional lexicographic sorting to maintain natural order for multi-section identifiers
2. Improve computer functionality: Enable efficient searching and sorting of complex identifiers without padding limitations
3. Require specific computer implementation: The prefix assignment algorithm and storage in computer-readable medium cannot be performed mentally
4. Address pervasive real-world problems: For example, modern library classification systems face problems that traditional floating-point sorting cannot address… Even if the claims were considered directed to an abstract idea (which is denied), they contain significantly more than the alleged abstract idea:
1. Specific algorithmic steps: The precise prefix assignment scheme (l-F for numbers, J-X for alphabetical) and special decimal handling with suffix characters
2. Advanced control mechanisms: Force positioning (0, Z), escape prefixes (G, Y), and decimal section processing
3. Technical improvement: Eliminating the padding failures inherent in prior art systems
while enabling proper decimal number sorting
4. Computer-specific implementation: Requiring computer processing for the complex prefix calculations and ASCII value comparisons”
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new amended claim limitations are rejected under 35 USC §112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement. See 35 USC §112(a) rejection below. Without considering the unsupported claim amendments, claim limitations are still rejected under 35 USC §101 because they are directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. Reciting the additional element of a “computer readable medium to sort lexicographic order” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See 35 USC §101 rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on pages 14-16 of the Applicant Arguments and Remarks “The combination of Vailaya and Kam does not teach or suggest the claimed invention. Vailaya Analysis: Vailaya teaches general image classification and indexing but does not disclose:
. Parsing identifiers into alphanumeric sections and separators
. The specific prefix assignment scheme (1-F for numbers, J-X for alphabetical)
. Creating lexical keys that maintain natural sort order through lexicographic sorting
Kam Analysis: Kam teaches database management but fails to disclose:
. The inventive prefix encoding methodology
. Natural order preservation through lexicographic sorting
. The specific length-based prefix assignments with escape and force capabilities
Combination Analysis: Even if combined, Vailaya and Kam do not teach or suggest:
1. The specific prefix scheme: Neither reference teaches assigning prefixes 1-F to numerical sections of length 1-15 or J-X to alphabetical sections of length 1-15
2. Escape prefix system: The prior art does not teach using G and Y as escape prefixes for
sections exceeding 15 characters
3. Force positioning capability: Neither reference discloses using prefix '0' to force items
to first position or 'Z' to force items to last position
4. Decimal number handling: Neither reference teaches the sophisticated decimal
processing with suffix characters and trailing zero removal
5. ASCII value optimization: The prior art does not teach using character ASCII values to
ensure proper decimal sorting
6. Zero-padding normalization: The prior art does not teach removing leading zeros to
create consistent identifier keys
7. Universal search capability: Neither reference addresses enabling searches regardless of
zero-padding variations
8. Natural order preservation: The prior art does not address the problem of maintaining
natural sort order in lexicographic systems
9. The technical solution: Neither reference suggests the specific algorithmic approach of
length-based prefix assignment combined with zero-padding normalization and
escape/force characters
Motivation to Combine: There is no apparent motivation to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention. The references address different problems in different fields and do not suggest solving the universal zero-padding and natural sorting problems that affect classification systems ranging from library science (Dewey Decimal System) to patent numbering systems.
Response to Argument 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new amended claim limitations are rejected under 35 USC §112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement. See 35 USC §112(a) rejection below. Without considering the unsupported claim amendments, Claims 1-4 are still rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Vailaya in view of Kam.
Examiner would like to point out that if Applicant disagrees with any factual findings by the office, an effective traverse of a rejection based wholly or partially on such findings must include a reasoned statement explaining why the applicant believes the office has erred substantively as to the factual findings. A mere statement or argument that the office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness or that the office’s reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an affective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b). Office personnel addressing this situation may repeat the rejection made in the prior Office action and make the next Office action final. See MPEP §706.07(a).
Applicants argument should be more than mere conclusory statements in order for to establish a position which the Applicant must provide clear rationale supporting the determination and articulate their disagreement regarding any part of the cited art. Applicant must provide appropriate analysis of the corresponding claimed limitation, and such analysis must be supported by the originally filed specification.
In this case, the Examiner noted that for the argued limitation, there is no a valid point addressed by the applicant, for example, indicating the reason of this conclusion.
For further clarification, the Examiner points out that Vailaya and Kam both relate to indexing and searching. Vailaya (abstract and paragraphs [0012-0017 and 0233]) discloses a method for indexing identifiers which includes receiving and splitting a product identifier into logical parts, indexing the product identifier and the individual logical parts in association with a particular document or portion thereof in an index, storing the index, where multiple logical parts separated by a space, may be indexed as a single consecutive character string [e.g. compression technique], If the product identifier is an alphanumeric character string, the logical parts may include an alphabetic part and a numeric part of the alphanumeric character string. For example, the alphabetic part and the numeric part may each be indexed in a field for partial strings.
Vailaya does not explicitly disclose adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together.
However, Kam disclose adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together by using an index compression technique.
Kam (paragraphs [0023, 0052, 0111-0113]) discloses a database index is crated and an index compression technique can be applied, including prefix compression, in which a key value prefix is identified and assigned to an identifier and matching prefixes from each index entry are replaced with the identifier that represents a pointer to the corresponding a dictionary entry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vailaya, which indexes identifiers including splitting the identifiers into logical parts (e.g. alphabetic, numeric) where logical parts can be indexed as a single consecutive character string [e.g. compression technique], to incorporate the teachings of Kam of using prefix compression technique on record identifiers for compressing indexes.
One would be motivated to do so to reduce storage footprint and provide a performance improvement due to decreased I/O (Kam 0019).
See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Specification
The amendment filed September 15, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In paragraph [0031] “A method of using index key generation for identifiers containing metadata elements, comprising the steps: parsing natural identifiers into constituent sections comprising alphanumeric portions and separators, including removing leading zeros from numerical portions; determining a length of each alphanumeric portion after removing leading zeros; assigning section length prefixes to each alphanumeric portion based on the determined length, wherein numerical portions of length 1-15 receive prefixes selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F respectively, and alphabetical portions of length 1-15 receive prefixes selected from the group consisting of J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X respectively; wherein sections exceeding 15 characters in length receive escape prefixes G for numerical portions and Y for alphabetical portions followed by a 2-digit base 36 length encoding, enabling virtually unlimited section lengths; wherein special handling of decimal sections is enabled by identifying decimal sections, omitting length prefixes for the decimal portion, appending a decimal suffix character having a lower ASCII value than numerical characters, and removing trailing zeros from decimal portions before encoding; wherein force positioning is enabled using prefix 0 for first position and prefix Z for last position; concatenating the assigned prefixes with their corresponding alphanumeric portions to create lexical identifier keys; storing the lexical identifier keys in a computer-readable medium as an index that maintains natural sort order when the lexical identifier keys are subjected to lexicographic sorting; wherein searching for an identifier is performed by applying the same parsing and prefix assignment process to a search term to generate a corresponding lexical identifier key for index lookup, such that identifiers with different zero-padding configurations resolve to identical lexical identifier keys; and creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers and sorting the natural identifiers in a sort order; using the lexical identifier keys as an index to maintain the sort order; using a computer readable medium to sort lexicographic order; increasing the accuracy of searching the lexicographic order with the natural identifiers; breaking the natural identifiers into alpha, numbers, and separators; adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together. The lexical identifier keys are used to store compound indexes in a compressed format and contain meta data. The method of claim 2, where the lexical identifier keys enable storage of multiple compound indexes into a single compressed index structure and can be used for storing computer compound indexes into a single compressed index. The lexical identifier keys enable efficient binary search operations through sets of multi-section identifiers while maintaining natural sort order and are used in a binary search through a set of identifiers with multiple sections. The lexical identifier keys facilitate manual sorting and item location by preserving natural ordering relationships between identifiers and are used to manually sort and find items. The lexical identifier keys enable display of records in natural order without requiring specialized sorting algorithms and are used for displaying records in a natural order.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following appears to be unsupported by the specification:
In claim 1: “parsing natural identifiers into constituent sections comprising alphanumeric portions and separators, including removing leading zeros from numerical portions;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “determining a length of each alphanumeric portion after removing leading zeros;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “assigning section length prefixes to each alphanumeric portion based on the determined length, wherein numerical portions of length 1-15 receive prefixes selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F respectively, and alphabetical portions of length 1-15 receive prefixes selected from the group consisting of J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X respectively;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “wherein sections exceeding 15 characters in length receive escape prefixes G for numerical portions and Y for alphabetical portions followed by a 2-digit base 36 length encoding, enabling virtually unlimited section lengths;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “wherein special handling of decimal sections is enabled by identifying decimal sections, omitting length prefixes for the decimal portion, appending a decimal suffix character having a lower ASCII value than numerical characters, and removing trailing zeros from decimal portions before encoding;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “wherein force positioning is enabled using prefix 0 for first position and prefix Z for last position;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “concatenating the assigned prefixes with their corresponding alphanumeric portions to create lexical identifier keys;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “storing the lexical identifier keys in a computer-readable medium as an index that maintains natural sort order when the lexical identifier keys are subjected to lexicographic sorting;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “wherein searching for an identifier is performed by applying the same parsing and prefix assignment process to a search term to generate a corresponding lexical identifier key for index lookup, such that identifiers with different zero-padding configurations resolve to identical lexical identifier keys;” Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
In claim 1: “Creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers”. What does "lexical identifier keys" refers to? Does it refers to compound lexical identifiers? Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
What does "natural identifiers" refers to? Does it refer to existing identifiers? Where is this supported in the original disclosure?
Dependent claims 2-6 also recite these limitations not described in the original disclosure, and are rejected as well for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers”. What does "lexical identifier keys" refers to? Does it refers to compound lexical identifiers?
What does "natural identifiers" refers to? Does it refer to existing identifiers? Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination “Creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers” is interpreted as creating identifiers from existing identifiers.
Claim 1 further recites "adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the identifier”, “the portion” and “the prefixed identifiers” in this limitation. Also it is unclear what “the identifier” refers to. Does it refer to the lexical identifier keys? Does it refer to the natural identifiers? And it is unclear what does "the portion being a number of Alpha" refers to. Does it refer to alphabetic characters? Does refers to alphanumeric information? Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination "adding a prefix to the identifier” is interpreted as adding a prefix to an identifier, and “a number of Alpha” is interpreted as a number of characters.
Claim 3 recites “where the lexical identifier keys enable storage of multiple compound indexes into a single compressed index structure and can be used for storing computer compound indexes into a single compressed index.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “computer compound indexes” refers to. Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “where the identifiers enable storage of multiple compound indexes into a single compressed index structure.”
Claim 5 recites “where the lexical identifier keys facilitate manual sorting and item location by preserving natural ordering relationships between identifiers and are used to manually sort and find items.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “preserving natural ordering relationships” refers to. Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “where the lexical identifier keys are used to manually sort and find items.”
Claim 6 recites “where the lexical identifier keys enable display of records in natural order without requiring specialized sorting algorithms and are used for displaying records in a natural order.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “specialized sorting algorithms” refers to. Examiner requests clarification from Applicant as the Specification does not provide sufficient support to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “where the lexical identifier keys are used for displaying records in a natural order.”
Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected as being dependent of rejected claims.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (claims 1-6).
Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture of composition of matter).
Step2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1),
it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental process.
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
“Creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers and sorting the natural identifiers in a sort order” (mental process - can be performed mentally or with pen and paper)
“using the lexical identifier keys as an index to maintain the sort order” (mental process - can be performed mentally or with pen and paper)
“increasing the accuracy of searching the lexicographic order with the natural identifiers” (mental process - can be performed mentally or with pen and paper)
“breaking the natural identifiers into alpha, numbers, and separators” (mental process - can be performed mentally or with pen and paper)
“adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together” (mental process - can be performed mentally or with pen and paper)
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
This judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular the
Recitation of a “computer readable medium to sort lexicographic order” in claim 1 is just a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as they recite further embellishment of the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
“where the lexical identifier keys contain meta data.” (Insignificant extra-solution activity - Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, MPEP 2106.05(g))
Claim 3:
“where the lexical identifier keys can be used for storing computer compound indexes into a single compressed index.” (Insignificant extra-solution activity - Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, MPEP 2106.05(g) – WURC in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - Storing and retrieving information in memory)
Claim 4:
“where the lexical identifier keys can be used in a binary search through a set of identifiers with multiple sections.” (Insignificant extra-solution activity - Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, MPEP 2106.05(g) – WURC in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - Storing and retrieving information in memory)
Claim 5:
“where the lexical identifier keys can be used to manually sort and find items.” (Insignificant extra-solution activity - Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, MPEP 2106.05(g) – WURC in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - Storing and retrieving information in memory)
Claim 6:
“where the lexical identifier keys can be used for displaying records in a natural order.” (Insignificant extra-solution activity - Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, MPEP 2106.05(g) – WURC in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - Storing and retrieving information in memory)
The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vailaya (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20080263033 A1), in view of Kam (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20170116280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vailaya teaches a method of using index key generation for identifiers containing metadata elements, comprising the steps: Creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers and sorting the natural identifiers in a sort order; using the lexical identifier keys as an index to maintain the sort order; using a computer readable medium to sort lexicographic order; (See Vailaya abstract “receiving a product identifier [e.g. natural identifiers]; splitting the product identifier into logical parts; indexing the product identifier and the individual logical parts in association with a particular document or portion thereof in an index; and storing the index [Thus, creating lexical identifier keys from natural identifiers]… searching a search index containing complete product identifiers and variations thereof for attempting to match the one or more terms to the product identifiers” See also Vailaya [0126] “after processing a document into sections and extracting its context information [e.g. metadata elements], a searchable index 224 is created and updated on both the content and the context [Thus, containing metadata elements]” See also Vailaya [0233] “In the lookup 1102, each term is looked up against the search index [Thus, using the lexical identifier keys] to find the list of documents that contains the term… Since the indexing process encodes the section id and paragraph number into a 32-bit position id value, a list of <document id, position id> integer pairs is returned in ascending order [Thus, maintain the sort order (e.g. sort lexicographic order)]… The search result is still sorted using sort process 1106 [Thus, sorting the natural identifiers in a sort order] by the final document score as before.” See also Vailaya [0299] “the index structure being embodied on a computer readable medium [Thus, using a computer readable medium to sort lexicographic order]”
See 112(b) rejection above regarding Examiner interpretation.)
increasing the accuracy of searching the lexicographic order with the natural identifiers; (See Vailaya [0253-0264] “the context information is stored inside the same index, with the term position set to section 0… context scoring is done by first determining if a match is for the context. This is easily implemented by checking the section number of the match for a document. If a match results in section 0, then it is for the context. Then, based on the matching paragraph id [Thus, searching the lexicographic order with natural identifiers], it can be determined which one of the meta data the term matched in… Then the values for these meta fields are added to the score value produced from the content matches to create the final document score… The value given to a term matches in the meta field is generally greater than the same match found in the content field… The meta fields contain special words that have strong semantics for a document. By leveraging these special terms inside the meta field, not only is a better and semantic-ally more relevant ranking created across documents, but better ranking is also produced within the sections of the same document.” See also Vailaya [0271] “results of a search 234 may be post processed to improve the results. A multi-stage post processing may be employed to efficiently and effectively filter out poor results or boost more relevant results. [Thus, increasing the accuracy of searching the lexicographic order with the natural identifiers]”)
breaking the natural identifiers into alpha, numbers, and separators; (See Vailaya [0012-0017] “A method for indexing a product identifier and logical parts thereof according to one embodiment of the present invention includes receiving a product identifier; splitting the product identifier into logical parts; indexing the product identifier and the individual logical parts in association with a particular document or portion thereof in an index; and storing the index… If the product identifier comprises multiple logical parts separated by a space, at least some of the logical parts may be indexed as a single consecutive character string… If the product identifier is an alphanumeric character string, the logical parts may include an alphabetic part and a numeric part of the alphanumeric character string. For example, the alphabetic part and the numeric part may each be indexed in a field for partial strings. The alphabetic part of an alphanumeric character string may also or alternatively be indexed in a field for alphabetic strings.” Thus, breaking the natural identifiers into alpha, numbers, and separators.)
Vailaya does not explicitly disclose adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together.
However, Kam discloses adding a prefix to the identifier based on the portion being a number of Alpha and putting the prefixed identifiers back together. (See Kam [0111-0113] “One compression technique that may be applied to a compression unit 202 is intra-column prefix compression… If a prefix matches a large number of key value prefixes, then compression savings can be achieved by storing the prefix value externally, such as in a dictionary table, and replacing the matching prefixes from each index entry with an identifier that represents a pointer to the corresponding dictionary entry… For example, consider a row-set: (‘abc’, 1) (‘abd’, 2) (‘abx’, 3) (‘aby’, 4) (‘abz’, 5). In the above simple example, the matching prefix ‘ab’ [e.g. a portion being a number of characters (e.g. Alpha)] can be extracted out into a dictionary table and assigned an identifier ‘1.’ [e.g. prefix] The values in the first column are then replaced [Thus, putting the prefixed identifiers back together] with the identifier: (‘1c’, 1) (‘1d’, 2) (‘1x’, 3) (‘1y’, 4) (‘1z’, 5) [Thus, adding a prefix]”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vailaya to incorporate the teachings of Kam of using compression units including record identifiers for compressing indexes.
One would be motivated to do so to reduce storage footprint and provide a performance improvement due to decreased I/O (Kam 0019).
Regarding claim 2, Vailaya further in view of Kam, [hereinafter Vailaya-Kam] teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, where the lexical identifier keys are used to store compound indexes in a compressed format and contain meta data. (See Kam [0005-0006] “An index is a body of index entries ordered by key values in key fields. In a relational database, an index key may be a set of one or more columns [e.g. compound] of a table, referred to herein as “key column/s. Each index entry includes a key value based on the corresponding data record (e.g. the values in the key columns of a row in a relational database table). In addition to the key value, each index entry includes a record identifier [e.g. contain meta data] that references the corresponding data record (e.g. a row identifier in a relational database)… Due to the size required to store indexes, it becomes imperative to efficiently compress indexes [e.g. compound indexes in a compressed format].” See also Kam [0019-0022, 0032 0088] “ The compression unit [e.g. compound index] is generated from a plurality of index entries that have a key value that falls in a range corresponding to the particular block. A compression scheme is determined for the compression unit, which may be different from the compression scheme/s applied to other compression units of the index… after a compression unit is generated, the compressed index entries of the compression unit are not modified until a compression unit update operation… New individual index entries of a leaf block may be incorporated into an updated compression unit during a compression unit update operation, such as when a compression unit update operation is performed… the term “compression unit” refers to a data structure [e.g. compound index] that includes a plurality of compressed index entries that belong in a particular leaf block… the updated compression unit includes valid index entries from multiple compression units. For example, two or more compression units from the same leaf block may be merged. Alternatively and/or in addition, two or more compression units may be merged into a single compression unit when different leaf blocks of the index are merged. [Thus, the identifiers are used to store compound indexes in a compressed format and contain meta data]”
See 112(b) rejection above regarding Examiner interpretation.)
Regarding claim 3, Vailaya-Kam teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 2, where the lexical identifier keys enable storage of multiple compound indexes into a single compressed index structure. (See Kam [0005-0006] “An index is a body of index entries ordered by key values in key fields. In a relational database, an index key may be a set of one or more columns [e.g. compound] of a table, referred to herein as “key column/s. Each index entry includes a key value based on the corresponding data record (e.g. the values in the key columns of a row in a relational database table). In addition to the key value, each index entry includes a record identifier that references the corresponding data record (e.g. a row identifier in a relational database)… Due to the size required to store indexes, it becomes imperative to efficiently compress indexes.” See also Kam [0019-0022, 0032] “The compression unit [e.g. compound index] is generated from a plurality of index entries [Thus, includes identifiers] that have a key value that falls in a range corresponding to the particular block. A compression scheme is determined for the compression unit, which may be different from the compression scheme/s applied to other compression units of the index… after a compression unit is generated, the compressed index entries of the compression unit are not modified until a compression unit update operation… New individual index entries of a leaf block may be incorporated into an updated compression unit during a compression unit update operation, such as when a compression unit update operation is performed” See also Kam [0088] “the updated compression unit includes valid index entries from multiple compression units [e.g. multiple compound indexes]. For example, two or more compression units from the same leaf block may be merged. Alternatively and/or in addition, two or more compression units may be merged into a single compression unit [e.g. a single compressed index structure] when different leaf blocks of the index are merged.”
See 112(b) rejection above regarding Examiner interpretation.)
Regarding claim 4, Vailaya-Kam teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3, where the lexical identifier keys enable efficient binary search operations through sets of multi-section identifiers while maintaining natural sort order and are used in a binary search through a set of identifiers with multiple sections. (See Kam [0006, 0054] “Due to the size required to store indexes, it becomes imperative to efficiently compress indexes… The plurality of compressed index entries 206 are ordered [Thus, maintaining natural sort order] relative to other compressed index entries 206 in the same compression unit 202 based on key value.” See also Kam [0129-0131] “one or more compression units 202 include a set of sentinel index entries 240-244 [e.g. sets of multi-section identifiers]. When a compression unit 202 is generated, the sentinel index entries 240-244 are placed throughout in the compressed index entries 206 [e.g. lexical identifier keys] of the compression unit 202… a binary search may be performed by accessing the sentinel index entries [Thus, lexical identifier keys are used in a binary search through a set of identifiers with multiple sections]”)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vailaya-Kam in view of Chipman (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20230039860 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vailaya-Kam, teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3, where the lexical identifier keys are used to manually sort and find items. (See Kam [0133-0134] “Users interact with a database server of a DBMS by submitting [Thus, manually] to the database server commands that cause the database server to perform operations on data stored in a database… A database command may be in the form of a database statement that conforms to a syntax of a database language. One example language for expressing database commands is the Structured Query Language (SQL)… SQL data manipulation language (“DML”) instructions are issued to a DBMS to manage data stored within a database structure. For instance, SELECT”
Examiner notes that Vailaya-Kam manage identifiers in databases, it is well known in the art that identifiers in a database can be used in a query to manually sort and find items.)
However, Chipman teaches where the lexical identifier keys are used to manually sort and find items in more details. (See Chipman [0021, 0025] “database clients and/or users can access a dynamic schema database 104 via a network 106. Users can submit queries [Thus, manually] that are executed by the database 104… the database system can include a query engine configured to accept and process user queries and return data output [Thus, to find items]… SQL queries can be defined and submitted by users for execution against dynamic schema databases” See also Chipman [0183-0191] “SQL's ORDER BY clause provides a way to order a result set by one or more sort keys… Sort keys that are column references can be compound identifiers… If an <order by clause> is specified, then the ordering of rows [Thus, sort] of the result is effectively determined by the <order by clause> as follows: a) Each <sort specification> specifies the sort direction for the corresponding sort key Ki. If DESC is not specified in the i-th <sort specification>, then the sort direction for Ki is ascending and the applicable <comp op> is the <less than operator>. Otherwise, the sort direction for Ki is descending… For example, SELECT e1 AS a [e.g. the identifier], e2 AS b FROM foo ORDER BY 1, 2” [Thus, a user that submits a query (e.g. including an identifier e1 AS a) using ORDER BY clause, can use the identifier to manually sort and find items])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vailaya-Kam to incorporate the teachings of Chipman of using SQL queries which include ORDER BY clause.
One would be motivated to do so to allow a user to effectively order results (Chipman 0185). Thus, improving data readability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vailaya-Kam in view of Griggs (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130339398 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Vailaya-Kam, teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3.
Vailaya-Kam does not explicitly disclose displaying records.
However, Griggs teaches that lexical identifier keys are used for displaying records in a natural order. (See Griggs [0027] “The data can be displayed in a table view, in which multiple data records can be displayed in a tabular format like a spreadsheet. In a table view, each data record can appear in a row, and each data field in the record [e.g. lexical identifier keys] can appear in a column… Data display area 104 can include table view 118”
PNG
media_image1.png
575
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Thus, identifiers (e.g. lexical identifier keys] are used for displaying records in a natural order])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vailaya-Kam to incorporate the teachings of Griggs of techniques of dynamically modify database schemas that allow defining new data fields, including generating unique identifiers based on content of data objects.
One would be motivated to do so to offer a convenient way to create a database table without requiring the user to understand what data type is underlying the data (Griggs 0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161