DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to action filed on 10/14/2025, in which claims 1 – 20 was presented for examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see Remarks below).
Remarks
5.1 As per rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues in substance in pages 8 – 15 that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectively disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the claims are directed to selection of data for generation of intermediate pending table, inserting data into pending intermediate table, and fulfil user query using the intermediate pending table. This process is not different from a process that can be manually or mentally performed with the aid of pencil and paper as discussed in detailed rejection below.
5.2 As per claim 1, applicant argues in substance in pages 15 – 20 that Liu et al (CN 112506953 A), Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1), and Zhu (CN 114297289 A) does not specifically disclose generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length;…………; inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database; performing, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicants’ argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the combine teaching of Liu et al (CN 112506953 A), Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1), and Zhu (CN 114297289 A) disclose generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length;…………; inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database; performing, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database (Liu: pg.2 lines 1 – 35; pg.8 lines 15 – 30; Chen: para.[0078]; and Zhu: pg.2 lines 17 – 18 and pg.3 lines 27, 36 – 37).
Liu discloses a system for analyzing the query and extracting core query content to determine whether the request is available in the intermediate table and directs execution of the query to the intermediate table (see pg.2 lines 19 – 21). The intermediate table is created by first analyzing the query content, executing it on the original data based on the specified criteria and inserting the result of the execution in a table in order to create an intermediate table. The subsequent query are then first analyzed to determine whether it can be executed on the intermediate table (see pg.2 lines 30 – 38 and pg.8 line 40).
As explained above, the disclosure of Liu explained how a query is received, analyzed to determine the content to retrieve (i.e. select) from databases, selecting appropriate content from databases based on required criteria, and creating an intermediate table with the selected data. Any subsequent query may now be directed to the intermediate table for execution if the content meet the query content. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
6.1 Claims 1 - 20 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
a SELECT statement, wherein the SELECT statement targets a base table in a database, wherein the executing comprises performing a fetch on the base table in the database based on the SELECT statement (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation)).
generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
INSERT operation inserted a record into the base table in the database behind the fetch on the base table in the database performed based on the SELECT statement (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. collection)).
inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. collection)).
based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database and generating, by the one or more processors, output for the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises merging results of the fetch on the base table in the database and the fetch on the intermediate pending table executed in the database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
INSERT operation inserted a record into the base table in the database behind the fetch on the base table in the database performed based on the SELECT statement (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database and generating, by the one or more processors, output for the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises merging results of the fetch on the base table in the database and the fetch on the intermediate pending table executed in the database (the step is directed to combining information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length (this step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of organize data).
inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database (this step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of organize data).
based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database and generating, by the one or more processors, output for the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises merging results of the fetch on the base table in the database and the fetch on the intermediate pending table executed in the database (the step is directed to combining information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to collecting, storing, and presenting information and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein inserting the record into the intermediate pending table comprises building a hash key (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein inserting the record into the intermediate pending table comprises building a hash key (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein performing the fetch on the intermediate pending table comprises utilizing a hash search (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein performing the fetch on the intermediate pending table comprises utilizing a hash search (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the INSERT operation is committed (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the INSERT operation is committed (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by index (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in an index leaf page (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by index (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in an index leaf page (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by tablespace scan (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in a data page (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by tablespace scan (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in a data page (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
returning, by the one or more processors, the output to the query (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organize)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
returning, by the one or more processors, the output to the query (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: generating, by the one or more processors, a parse tree for the SELECT statement; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the parse tree to generate the table structure (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: generating, by the one or more processors, a parse tree for the SELECT statement; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the parse tree to generate the table structure (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: extracting, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, columns from the base table (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: extracting, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, columns from the base table (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the columns comprise data type and data length (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. structure)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the columns comprise data type and data length (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 - 19 recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claims 11 - 19 are system claim correspond to method claims 1 — 9 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 — 9 are applied to claims 11 – 19 respectively.
Claim 20 recites a computer program product, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 20 is a computer program product claim correspond to method claim 1, thus, the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 20.
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.
7. Claims 1, 4 – 11, and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 112506953 A), in view of Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1), and further in view of Zhu (CN 114297289 A).
As per claim 1, Liu et al (CN 112506953 A) discloses,
A computer-implemented method of obtaining accurate results for a query in a database (pg.2 line 15; “executing the query to obtain a query result” and pg. lines 26 – 27; “allows SQL statements corresponding to tables to be executed faster and to quickly
access specific information in the database tables”).
the method comprising: executing, by one or more processors, in the database, a query comprising a SELECT statement (pg.8 line 15; “execution order of the SQL statements is: SELECT”).
wherein the SELECT statement targets a base table in a database (pg.2 line 32; “acquiring query records which are queried by accessing an original table”, where original table is interpreted as “base table” as claimed).
wherein the executing comprises performing a fetch on the base table in the database based on the SELECT statement (pg.2 line 32; “acquiring query records which are queried by accessing an original table”, where original table is interpreted as “base table” as claimed and pg.8 line 21; “a SELECT statement in a native SQL statement is analyzed”).
generating, by the one or more processors, an intermediate pending table in the database with a table structure based on the SELECT statement (pg.2 lines 34 – 35; “creating an intermediate table corresponding to each SQL content based on the core query content”).
wherein the generating comprises extracting one or more columns referenced by the SELECT from the base table in the database, the columns selected from the group consisting of: data type and data length (pg.2 line 32; “acquiring query records which are queried by accessing an original table”, where original table is interpreted as “base table” as claimed and pg.8 line 21; “a SELECT statement in a native SQL statement is analyzed”).
performing, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, a fetch on the intermediate pending table in the database (pg.2 lines 20 – 21; “the query is executed for the intermediate table query SQL based on the native SQL, so that a query result is obtained”).
Liu does not specifically disclose determining, by the one or more processors, that an INSERT operation inserted a record into the base table in the database behind the fetch on the base table in the database performed based on the SELECT statement
However, Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
determining, by the one or more processors, that an INSERT operation inserted a record into the base table in the database behind the fetch on the base table in the database performed based on the SELECT statement (para.[0078]; “After the result table 50 is populated with rows from the database table according to any qualification criteria in the SELECT statement ………….A FETCH SENSITIVE checks the base table 60, thus reflecting changes made outside of the cursor result table”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into maintenance of updated data of the system of Liu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
Neither Liu nor Zhu specifically disclose inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database, and generating, by the one or more processors, output for the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises merging results of the fetch on the base table in the database and the fetch on the intermediate pending table executed in the database.
However, Zhu (CN 114297289 A) in an analogous art discloses,
inserting, by the one or more processors, the record into the intermediate pending table in the table structure in the database (pg.2 lines 17 – 18; “the method for updating the operation record corresponding to the data includes: when the source table executes INSERT statement operation” and pg.3 lines 36 – 37; “creating module 10 is configured to set a corresponding intermediate table for each source table, the intermediate table stores a corresponding operation record when operating the source table data”),
and generating, by the one or more processors, output for the SELECT statement, wherein the generating comprises merging results of the fetch on the base table in the database and the fetch on the intermediate pending table executed in the database (pg.3 line 27; “acquiring incremental data of the source table based on the source table and the intermediate table”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu into result table of the system of Chen to properly maintain updated data in the system of Liu, thereby improve the quality of information provided to the user.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) discloses,
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the INSERT operation is committed (para.[0058]; “SELECT statement that are not specifically selected columns are compared when fetching rows from the result table to ensure that all base table columns involved in expressions in the SELECT statement are checked to determine if the base table value has been updated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Liu et al (CN 112506953 A) discloses,
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by index; and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in an index leaf page (pg.5 lines 30 – 32; “creating an intermediate table corresponding to each SQL content based on the core query content and the additional condition content corresponding to each SQL content comprises: creating a corresponding intermediate table according to the core query content corresponding to each SQL content; the created intermediate table is indexed based on the additional condition content”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) discloses,
wherein determining that the INSERT operation inserted the record into the base table behind the fetch on the base table comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the base table is accessed in the SELECT statement by tablespace scan; and based on the determining, comparing, by the one or more processors, the record in a data page (para.[0078]; “After the result table 50 is populated with rows from the database table according to any qualification criteria in the SELECT statement ………….A FETCH SENSITIVE checks the base table 60, thus reflecting changes made outside of the cursor result table”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Liu et al (CN 112506953 A) discloses,
further comprising: returning, by the one or more processors, the output to the query (pg.5 line 23; “intermediate table to query the SQL based on the native SQL and executing the query to obtain a query result”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) discloses,
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: generating, by the one or more processors, a parse tree for the SELECT statement; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the parse tree to generate the table structure (para.[0039]; “SQL query or cursor related command, ….. call the parser precompiler 8 to parse the statements from the application program 2 and generate parse trees for the statements”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) discloses,
wherein generating the intermediate pending table further comprises: extracting, by the one or more processors, based on the SELECT statement, columns from the base table (para.[0076]; “the parameters in the INSERT INTO statement are the values that are inserted into the result table … from the base table”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1) discloses,
wherein the columns comprise data type and data length (para.[0054]; “"type": indicates the type of column”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate result table of the system of Chen into incremental data acquisition of the system of Zhu to automatically update result table with updated data from base table during processing of user request.
Claims 11 and 14 - 19 are system claim corresponding to method claims 1 and 4 - 9 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 and 4 - 9 respectively above.
Claim 20 is a computer program product claim corresponding to method claim 1, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 1 above.
8. Claims 2 – 3 and 12 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 112506953 A), in view of Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1), in view of Zhu (CN 114297289 A), and further in view of Pan et al (US 2010/0281076 A1).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Liu et al (CN 112506953 A), Chen et al (US 2002/0029212 A1), and Zhu (CN 114297289 A) does not disclose wherein inserting the record into the intermediate pending table comprises building a hash key.
However, Pan et al (US 2010/0281076 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein inserting the record into the intermediate pending table comprises building a hash key (para.[0012]; “the intermediate table further includes a hash field …….. the intermediate table further includes calculating a hashed value of the element to record the hashed value into the hash field”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate intermediate table data field content of the system of Pan into the combine teaching of Chen and Zhu to represent relevance data in the intermediate table of the system of Liu, thereby improving the quality of updated data return to requesting entity.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Pan et al (US 2010/0281076 A1) discloses,
wherein performing the fetch on the intermediate pending table comprises utilizing a hash search (para.[0057]; “hashed value of each element is stored into the intermediate table so that most elements can be filtered out when multiple elements are queried”).
Claims 12 – 13 are system claim corresponding to method claims 2 – 3 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 2 – 3 respectively above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
2/15/2026