DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 1/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delamare et al. (US patent Pub 2020/0073868) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0310302), further in view of Yue et al. (US Patent Pub 2022/0067011).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delamare et al. (US patent Pub 2020/0073868) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0310302), further in view of Yue et al. (US Patent Pub 2022/0067011), further in view of Jois (US Patent Pub 2020/0394183).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/13/2026 has been fully considered, initialed, and signed by the Examiner. A copy is attached to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 6 and 16, “the number of unique strings” should be “the number of unique string values”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “deciding that a number of unique string values of first string data…” and “deciding that the number of unique string values of second string data” in the third and seventh limitations, respectively. As recited, the limitations refer to a “first string data” and “second string data” but they are both “of the graph string data.” Dividing the “graph string data” into two sets of “string data” and determining their storage representation is not supported by the specification. Applicant has not cited to any support in the specification for these limitations. For the prior art rejections below, the limitations are interpreted as referring to the same set of “graph string data”. Accordingly, the claim is also rejected under 112(b) as set forth below, because the “number of unique string values” cannot be both “not greater than” and “greater than” a “maximum number of unique string values.”
Claim 1 also recites “storing a first plurality of string objects each having a size of a number of bytes and comprising a string of variable length having a maximum length of a number of character bytes, wherein the number of character bytes plus at least one first metadata byte is less than the number of bytes” in the ninth limitation. These limitations are not supported by the specification. First, this limitation seems to refer to “inlined storage”, which is a type of storage representation that is efficient for small strings, such as those having a length up to 6 characters and a size up to 8 bytes. The limitation, as recited, seems to be a conflate different aspects of the string objects (i.e., character length vs string size in bytes). Next, the limitation seems to be comparing the size of the string object to itself (i.e., “the number of bytes”). Lastly, for inline storage, size of the string, plus the metadata byte, plus the null byte is required for comparison to the size limit. Here, the limitation only addresses two of the three and would be inconsistent with what’s described in the specification.
Claim 6 recites “in accordance with the number of unique strings being greater than the maximum number of unique string values, determining whether to increase the unique index size.” The claim also recites “ wherein the maximum number of unique string values corresponds to a global index size of 3 bytes.” Applicant’s specification at Fig. 2 shows the largest index size is 3 bytes. Accordingly, the “maximum number of unique values” corresponds to “16,777,215” as claimed. As such, if “the number of unique strings” is greater than “the maximum number of unique string values” (which corresponds to the largest index size of 3 bytes), the strings would be stored in a different storage representation, such as inline or dynamically allocated storage, as described in the specification. The specification does not seem to support increasing the size of the index beyond 3 bytes.
Claims 11 and 16 recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
The prior art rejections below are made as best understood in light of the rejections above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “deciding that a number of unique string values of first string data … is not greater than a maximum number of unique string values” and “deciding that the number of unique string values of second string data … is greater than the maximum number of unique string values” in the third and seventh limitations, respectively. It is unclear how the “number of unique string values” can be both “not greater than” and “greater than” the “maximum number of unique string values.” In the seventh limitation, with reference to the “second string data”, the limitation “the number of unique string values” still references the number of unique string values of the “first string data.” As explained in the 112(a) rejection above, storage of the string data is determined for a single set of selected string data and it is not separated into two sets. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 further recites “the number of bytes” in the ninth and tenth limitations. This limitation is essentially the size of each string object as recited at the beginning of the ninth limitation. Therefore, it is unclear how there can be a comparison between the size of a string object with its own size. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 further recites “… a string of variable length having a maximum length of a number of character bytes” in the seventh limitation. It is unclear how a string length is measured in “character bytes” because “bytes” are units for indicating a size. Clarification is required.
Further in regards to claim 1, seventh limitation, it is unclear whether “maximum length” is a value that is configured and distinct from the character length of the string in the string object. The specification does not seem to explain or mention a preconfigured “maximum length”. Clarification is required. For the prior art rejections below, the limitation will be interpreted as the length of the string.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delamare et al. (US patent Pub 2020/0073868) (Delamare) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0310302) (Wu), further in view of Yue et al. (US Patent Pub 2022/0067011) (Yue).
In regards to claim 1, Delamare discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining graph data from a data storage device (Delamare at paras. 0025, 0027-28, 0067)1;
selecting a storage representation for graph string data that is based on the graph data and comprises a plurality of strings of variable length, each of the plurality of strings having a unique string value (Delamare at para. 0029)2, wherein the selected storage representation is one of a first storage representation or a second storage representation (Delamare at paras. 0052-53)3;
deciding that the number of unique string values of first string data of the graph string data is not greater than a maximum number of unique string values (Delamare at paras. 0052-53);
in accordance with the number of unique string values of the first string data being not greater than the maximum number of unique string values, storing the first string data in a memory using the first storage representation (Delamare at paras. 0052-53)4, comprising:
creating a dictionary for the first string data, wherein the dictionary comprises a mapping between each string of the plurality of strings and a unique index (Delamare at paras. 0033-37)5; and
(The remaining limitations pertain to steps that are not required to be performed because the condition for the first storage representation is met above and the conditions for the second storage representation is not met. See MPEP 2111.04, section II)
deciding that the number of unique string values of second string data of the graph string data is greater than the maximum number of unique string values; and
in accordance with the number of unique string values of the second string data being greater than the maximum number of unique string values, storing the second string data in the memory using the second storage representation, comprising:
storing a first plurality of string objects each having a size of a number of bytes and comprising a string of variable length having a maximum length of character bytes, wherein the number of character bytes plus at least one first metadata byte is less than the number of bytes, and
storing a second plurality of string objects each having a size greater than the number of bytes in a dynamically allocated memory region and storing, in the memory and separate from the dynamically allocated memory region, a plurality of pointers each pointing to a respective string object of the second plurality of string objects, wherein the pointer indicates a first character of a string content included in that string object, wherein at least one metadata byte included in that string object indicates an attribute of the string object and a size of the string content.
Delamare does not expressly disclose storing the dictionary as a data structure separate from the first string data and wherein each of the first string data of the plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in the memory.
Wu discloses a system and method for storing and querying graph data using a key-value store. Wu discloses graph data is received and includes one or more graph statements (i.e., string data). Wu at para. 0046. The graph statement values are hashed to create a hash map (i.e., dictionary). The hash map can be stored in a structure that is separate from the structure that stores the graph data (i.e., storing the dictionary … separate from the string data). Wu at para. 0056. Wu further discloses the graph data is stored in a storage location (i.e., plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in memory). Wu at para. 0042.
Delamare and Wu are analogous art because they are directed to managing graph data.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delamare by adding the features of storing the dictionary as a data structure separate from the first string data and wherein each of the first string data of the plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in the memory, as disclosed by Wu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient querying. Wu at para. 0020.
Delamare in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein for each of the first string data of the plurality of strings, the unique index for that string is stored at each instance of that string in the graph data.
Yue discloses a system and method for data processing in a distributed graph database. Like Wu, Yue discloses a key-value index for the properties of graph components (i.e., string data). Each index includes information about an instance of the graph data. The index information includes an indexID, which corresponds to the key of the property (i.e., index of the string). Yue at paras. 0131-134.
Delamare, Wu, and Yue are analogous art because they are directed to managing graph data.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delamare in view of Wu by adding the features of wherein for each of the first string data of the plurality of strings, the unique index for that string is stored at each instance of that string in the graph data, as disclosed by Yue.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of adding, deleting, modifying or checking data in the graph database. Yue at para. 0130.
In regards to claim 7, Delamare in view of Wu and Yue discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graph string data is stored in the memory by implementing an application programming interface (API).
In regards to claim 11, Delamare discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor (Delamare at para. 0094) to:
obtain graph data from a data storage device (Delamare at paras. 0025, 0027-28, 0067)6;
select a storage representation for string data that is based on the graph data and comprises a plurality of strings of variable length, each of the plurality of strings having a unique string value (Delamare at para. 0029)7, wherein the selected storage representation is one of a first storage representation or a second storage representation (Delamare at paras. 0052-53)8;
deciding that the number of unique string values of first string data of the graph string data is not greater than a maximum number of unique string values (Delamare at paras. 0052-53);
in accordance with a number of unique string values of the string data being not greater than a maximum number, store the string data in a memory using the first storage representation (Delamare at paras. 0052-53)9, in a procedure comprising:
creating a dictionary for the string data, wherein the dictionary comprises a mapping between each string of the plurality of strings and a unique index paras. 0033-37)10; and
(The remaining limitations pertain to steps that are not required to be performed because the condition for the first storage representation is met above and the conditions for the second storage representation is not met. See MPEP 2111.04, section II)
deciding that the number of unique string values of second string data of the graph string data is greater than the maximum number of unique string values; and
in accordance with the number of unique string values of the second string data being greater than the maximum number of unique string values, storing the second string data in the memory using the second storage representation, comprising:
storing a first plurality of string objects each having a size of a number of bytes and comprising a string of variable length having a maximum length of character bytes, wherein the number of character bytes plus at least one first metadata byte is less than the number of bytes, and
storing a second plurality of string objects each having a size greater than the number of bytes in a dynamically allocated memory region and storing, in the memory and separate from the dynamically allocated memory region, a plurality of pointers each pointing to a respective string object of the second plurality of string objects, wherein the pointer indicates a first character of a string content included in that string object, wherein at least one metadata byte included in that string object indicates an attribute of the string object and a size of the string content.
Delamare does not expressly disclose storing the dictionary as a data structure separate from the first string data and wherein each of the first string data of the plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in the memory.
Wu discloses a system and method for storing and querying graph data using a key-value store. Wu discloses graph data is received and includes one or more graph statements (i.e., string data). Wu at para. 0046. The graph statement values are hashed to create a hash map (i.e., dictionary). The hash map can be stored in a structure that is separate from the structure that stores the graph data (i.e., storing the dictionary … separate from the string data). Wu at para. 0056. Wu further discloses the graph data is stored in a storage location (i.e., plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in memory). Wu at para. 0042.
Delamare and Wu are analogous art because they are directed to managing graph data.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delamare by adding the features of storing the dictionary as a data structure separate from the first string data and wherein each of the first string data of the plurality of strings is stored once at a respective memory location in the memory, as disclosed by Wu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for efficient querying. Wu at para. 0020.
Delamare in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein for each of the first string data of the plurality of strings, the unique index for that string is stored at each instance of that string in the graph data.
Yue discloses a system and method for data processing in a distributed graph database. Like Wu, Yue discloses a key-value index for the properties of graph components (i.e., string data). Each index includes information about an instance of the graph data. The index information includes an indexID, which corresponds to the key of the property (i.e., index of the string). Yue at paras. 0131-134.
Delamare, Wu, and Yue are analogous art because they are directed to managing graph data.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delamare in view of Wu by adding the features of wherein for each of the first string data of the plurality of strings, the unique index for that string is stored at each instance of that string in the graph data, as disclosed by Yue.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of adding, deleting, modifying or checking data in the graph database. Yue at para. 0130.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as claim 17 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delamare et al. (US patent Pub 2020/0073868) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0310302), further in view of Yue et al. (US Patent Pub 2022/0067011), further in view of Jois (US Patent Pub 2020/0394183) (Jois).
In regards to claim 2, Delamare in view of Wu and Yue discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed in a distributed graph processing system, wherein the graph data is partitioned across a plurality of computing machines each having associated therewith a portion of the plurality of strings, wherein each of the plurality of computing machines performs a hashing procedure for the portion of the plurality of strings associated therewith to generate a hashed string portion (Yue at paras. 0111; Wu at paras. 0054-57) and but does not expressly disclose sends the hashed string portion to a leader machine of the plurality of computing machines.
Jois discloses a distributed graph ledger that has followers and a leader. The followers are configured to send their hash values to the leader. Jois at paras. 0125, 0160.
Delamare, Wu, Yue, and Jois are analogous art because they are directed to managing graph data.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delamare in view of Wu and Yue by adding the features of sends the hashed string portion to a leader machine of the plurality of computing machines, as disclosed by Jois.
The motivation for doing so would have been to because maintain consistency throughout the distributed system with improved functional performance. Jois at para. 0043.
In regards to claim 3, Delamare in view of Wu, Yue, and Jois discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining a set of unique strings in the plurality of strings (Wu at para. 0057);
determining a number of unique strings in the set of unique strings (Delamare at para. 0052); and
determining a global index size based on the number of unique strings. Delamare at paras. 0032-37.11
Claims 12 and 13 are essentially the same as claims 2 and 3, respectively, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the specification to address missing reference numbers is acknowledged. Consequently, objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Objection to claims 1 and 11 for Minor Informalities
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 11 to address the minor informalities is acknowledged. Consequently, the objection to claims 1 and 11 is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-20 is acknowledged. However, while Applicant’s amendments address some issues, they raise new issues as set forth in the rejections above. The rejection to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained under the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1 and 11, Applicant alleges Delamare in view of Wu and Yue fails to disclose (1) “storing a first plurality of string objects each having a size of a number of bytes…” and (2) “storing a second plurality of string objects each having a size greater than the number of bytes …”. Applicant argues the claims, as amended, require performance of all operations. Remarks at 10-11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
As recited in claims 1 and 11, only one set of “graph string data” is selected based on a single obtained “graph data”. Therefore, the “first string data” of the claim and the “second string data” of the claim refer to the same “graph string data”. As explained in the rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) above, the claims attempt to store the same “graph string data” in both the first and second storage representations because the “number of unique string values” is both greater than and less than the “maximum number of unique string values.” However, this is not possible and also inconsistent with what is described in the specification. The “graph string data” is stored as the “first storage representation” if the number of unique string values in the “graph string data” allows. If the number of unique string values becomes too large, the dictionary encoding is “reverted” (Spec at paras. 0036-38) and one of the other types of storage are utilized (i.e., second storage representation) as appropriate.
For the purpose of the prior art rejections, since the limitations rely on the same “graph string data” and the limitations interpreted in light of the specification does not store the “graph string data” in both a “first storage representation” and a “second storage representation”, but instead utilizes the “first storage representation” first, if appropriate, or utilizes the “second storage representation” if appropriate. Accordingly, all operations are not required to be performed.
For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts Delamare in view of Wu and Yue discloses claims 1 and 11 pursuant to MPEP 2111.04.
Applicant does not present additional arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts the cited prior art discloses all the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons explained above. In regards to the remaining claims, Applicant refers to the arguments presented in regards to claim 1, which are addressed above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Harris et al. (US Patent Pub 2010/0274786) discloses a system and method for performing longest common prefix string searches. The system utilizes dictionary encoding and storing the compressed strings in the graph data structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Graph data is loaded.
2 The graph data contains property data, which comprises labels (i.e., a plurality of strings of variable length). Each entity (i.e., node) comprises a label (i.e., each of the plurality of strings having a unique string value).
3 The labels (i.e., string data) are processed to determine if a label set is less than or equal to 61 bit (i.e., not greater than a maximum number). If so, the dictionary is used and no external storage is needed (i.e., first storage representation). If it is greater than 61 (i.e., max number), then pointers are used that point to an external storage (i.e., second storage representation).
4 If the label set is less than or equal to 61 bits (i.e., the number of unique string values of the string data not greater than a maximum number), the label set is stored in memory using a dictionary encoding without an external storage (i.e., first storage representation).
5 A two tiered dictionary is created that maps labels (i.e., each string …) to a specific code (i.e., unique index).
6 Graph data is loaded.
7 The graph data contains property data, which comprises labels (i.e., a plurality of strings of variable length). Each entity (i.e., node) comprises a label (i.e., each of the plurality of strings having a unique string value).
8 The labels (i.e., string data) are processed to determine if a label set is less than or equal to 61 bit (i.e., not greater than a maximum number). If so, the dictionary is used and no external storage is needed (i.e., first storage representation). If it is greater than 61 (i.e., max number), then pointers are used that point to an external storage (i.e., second storage representation).
9 If the label set is less than or equal to 61 bits (i.e., the number of unique string values of the string data not greater than a maximum number), the label set is stored in memory using a dictionary encoding without an external storage (i.e., first storage representation).
10 A two tiered dictionary is created that maps labels (i.e., each string …) to a specific code (i.e., unique index).
11 The size of the dictionary (i.e., global index) is based on the number of strings it represents.