DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 24-28, 30, 34-38, 40 and 41 are pending of which claims 1, and 30 are in independent form.
Claims 25, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 1, 24-28, 30, 34-38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 24-28, 30, 34-38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea)
The newly added amendments and arguments fail to over the 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea), more specifically:
Regarding claims 1 and 30, recites receiving a query, generating hash values, comparing the generated hash values with stored have values, generating an alternate hash value upon failure to locate a match, and retrieving a stored query result. These limitations describe concepts involving evaluating, comparing, identifying, and retrieving information, which fall within the judicial exception of mental process because they constitute observations, evaluation, and comparisons that can practically be performed in the human mind.
The additional elements recite generic computing cluster, processor, databases, tables and memory used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite an improvement to functioning of the computer itself of any other technology. Rather, it merely uses generic computer components to perform the abstract idea more efficiently.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
Regarding claims 25 and 35, the applicant failed to respond to the rejection of claims 25 and 35 and therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 25, and 35 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.
Regarding claims 25 and 35, the claims recite “when the second hash value does not exist in the list of query hash values: process the query in accordance with a query processing procedure of the database system to produce the query resultant”, however, applicant could not find support for the newly added amendments, additionally, applicant did not provide support for the amendments in the response.
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, 24-28, 30, 34-38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) system and method for generating guardrail data structure in a LLM chatbot system.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, is directed to a system, which comprises, one or more processors.
Independent claims 30 are directed to a “computer-readable memory”, which the specification ¶ [0556] has defined as non-transitory.
Independent All other claims depend on claims 1, and 30. As such, claims 1, 21-39 are directed to a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, and 30:
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception), it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Health grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
receiving a query;
generating a first hash value;
determining whether the hash exists;
generating a second hash value if necessary;
determining whether the second hash exists in a list
retrieve cached query results.
The claims are directed to: identifying, comparing and managing query identifiers and associated results using rules (hashing, lookup, and storage decisions)
The claims fall within:
Mental Process (comparing information, identifying matches, selecting an alternate, retrieving previously stored information)
Mathematical Algorithm/Concept (hash functions)
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two (Particular Application), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the use of:
A database
Processing core resources
A query/response subsystem
Storage structure (lists, hash value)
The processor merely executes the abstract steps. The database is used in a routine storage and retrieval. The hashing is a conventional identifier technique. The list of hash values is a standard lookup/cache structure.
The claims do not:
Improve database architecture and memory organization;
Improve hashing algorithm;
Improve query execution at a technical level;
Introduce a new data structure/cache architecture/parser/ hash algorithm/database engine.
Reduce computational complexity in a technical way.
There are no improvements to computer functionality or any specific technical solution to a computer centric problem. Instead, the computer and semiconductor environment are used as tools to execute abstract mathematical encoding, data analysis, and decision making, with the result merely being applied in a generic manner.
There is no recitation of, a new data structure that changes computer operation, improved network functioning, an unconventional indexing technique, a specific hardware solution.
Instead, the claims recite conventional and generic computer functions performed in a routine manner, which does not amount to a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited components are merely generic computer/database elements performing their routine, well-understood, and conventional functions. See Alive, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The steps mentioned in the independent claims are merely generic processor, generic storage, conventional hashing, routine caching/lookup logic. Courts have consistently helped such high-level information management operations are conventional.
The claims recite only functional, result oriented language (“detecting”, “propagating”, “transferring”,…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner.
Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 24-25, and 34-35 (Conventional Reprocessing/Retry Logic),
The claim recites:
Performing conditional logic when a match is not found (claims 23 and 33)
Using context (schema/session) to influence processing (claims 24 and 34)
Fallback to normal query execution when no match exists (claims 25 and 35)
This merely applies if/then decision making and retry logic. There are no changes to: how hashing works, how queries are executed technically, or any underlaying system architecture. These fall under: Mental Process (Evaluation, decision making), and Rule based data processing.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 26, 27, 36, and 37 (Storing, Caching, and Uniqueness Handling),
The claim recites:
Storing query results and identifiers (claims 26 and 36)
Executing queries on processing resources (claims 27 and 37)
Determining uniqueness of identifiers and storing results conditionally (claims 29 and 39)
This merely performs: storing results, checking uniqueness, reusing stored data. There are no changes to: memory architecture, caching mechanism, or processing operation. These fall under: Mental Process (record-keeping, comparison), and Data storage and retrieval.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 28, and 38 (Access Control/Permission Evaluation),
The claim recites:
Verifying whether the user has permission to access data before returning a result
This merely applies a rule-based access decision. There are no changes to: security technology, authentication mechanism, or system architecture. These fall under: Mental Process (Rule Evaluation), and Method of organizing human activity (access control).
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 40, and 41 (Rule-Based User Association With Qualified Table),
The claim recites:
Determining to associate or not associate a specific user submitting the query with a set of table names when the table names are qualified or not qualified.
This merely applies a rule-based decision making. There are no changes to: how query is identified; how hash values are computed; how query matching is performed; how cache lookups are executed. These fall under: Mental Process (Rule Evaluation).
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 27, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogelsgesang; Adrian et al. (US 20200201860 A1) [Vogelsgesang] in view of Zhou; Xiao-Ming et al. (US 20240378208 A1) [Zhou] in view of Bensberg; Christian et al. (US 20180336263 A1) [Bensberg].
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Vogelsgesang discloses, a query and response sub-system of a database system (receiving a database query and executing via operator tree [Abstract], ¶ [0005] , generating result set corresponding to the query ¶ [0035]) comprises: a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a computing device cluster of the plurality of computing device clusters includes a plurality of computing devices, wherein a computing device of the plurality of computing devices includes a plurality of computing nodes, wherein a computing node of the plurality of computing nodes includes a plurality of processing core resources (Fig. 1, client device, database server, execution components ¶ [0035], computing device including CPUs, memory, etc.. ¶ [0032]), wherein a set of processing core resources of the computing device cluster is operable to:
receive a query regarding data of a dataset (receives a database query ¶ [0003], receiving a database query ¶ [0035], execution selector identifies query characteristics ¶ [0051], [0053]), wherein the dataset includes a set of tables, wherein a table of the set of tables includes a plurality of rows of columnar data, wherein the columnar data includes a plurality of columns of data (data from one or more database tables to provide the data requested by the query…SQL queries include SELECT...FROM…WHERE… specifying columns … the tables that include the desired columns ¶ [0003], tuples (e.g. rows in database 112) ¶ [0052], columns from different join sides [0063]);
without regard to qualifying for execution a set of table names of the set of tables; …. with regard to qualifying for execution the set of table names of the set of tables (When an SQL query is received by a database engine, the query is parsed and translated into an abstract syntax tree. Semantic analysis turns the syntax tree into an operator tree. Building the operator tree combines the syntax tree with schema information, resolves table and column names ¶ [0004]);
when the hash value exists in the list of query hash values (reuse/replace duplicate operators ¶ [0055], hash mapping…eliminate duplicate fragments ¶ [0005], [0012], [0055], [0079]);
access the list based on the hash value (the computed value is stored in a register of the CPU(s) 202. In some implementations, the compiler 242 and/or the optimizer 242 store data structures, such as hash maps and lists of the dependencies between query operators 228 in the memory 214, to support or guide the optimization passes ¶ [0040]. Subsequently, the optimization pass 308-D traverses the query operator tree 228 in breadth-first post-order 322, guided by a hash map 324 (e.g., indexed by the query operator signatures) and/or a list of dependencies 320. In some implementations, the dependencies list 320 and/or the hash map 324 are updated during the course of the tree traversal 322 ¶ [0050]).
However, Vogelsgesang does not explicitly facilitate generate a first hash value for the query; … generate a second hash value for the query; access the list based on the second hash value to retrieve a query resultant of the query based on the second hash value.
Zhou discloses, generate a first hash value for the query; … generate a second hash value for the query (A hash value for the query instance received may be generated. The hash value may be used to find a query cache that matches the hash value ¶ [0005]. The enterprise query base may be further configured to generate a hash value for the query instance received ¶ [0007], [0110]);
access the list based on the second hash value to retrieve a query resultant of the query based on the second hash value (The query cache may also include a “text hash number” which may include a hash value (e.g., numeric value of a fixed length that uniquely identifies data) that may be generated based on the query text. The hash value may be used for a quick search for a query in the query cache ¶ [0102]. Also see ¶ [0005], [0007], [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Zhou’s system would have allowed Vogelsgesang to facilitate generate a first hash value for the query; … generate a second hash value for the query; access the list based on the second hash value to retrieve a query resultant of the query based on the second hash value. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Vogelsgesang’s reference, because there is a need to improve computer-implemented method for analysis of data from multiple data sources and a computing system.
However, neither Vogelsgesang nor Zhou explicitly facilitate determine whether the first hash value exists in a list of query hash values; when the first hash value does not exist in the list of query hash values; determine whether the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values; when the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values.
Bensberg discloses, determine whether the first hash value exists in a list of query hash values; when the first hash value does not exist in the list of query hash values (The system can include (or otherwise utilize) at least one processor and/or memory, which can be configured to perform operations including generating, based on a database query, a plurality of hash values for at least a portion of one or more database tables. The operations can also include generating, for at least a portion of the plurality of hash values, a hash table based on comparing, for each of the plurality of hash values, the hash value against a list of hash values in the hash table to determine whether a matching hash value exists. The hash table can also be generated based on adding, when the matching hash value does not exist, the hash value to the list of hash values, and/or comparing, when the matching hash value exists, first underlying data used to generate the hash value against second underlying data used to generate the matching hash value to determine whether the first and second underlying data are equivalent ¶ [0004]. In various implementations, the generation of the hash table, the hash collision table, and/or the resolution dictionary can be based on (a) comparing, for each of the plurality of hash values, the hash value against a list of hash values in the hash table to determine whether a matching hash value exists, (b) adding, when the matching hash value does not exist, the hash value to the list of hash values, (c) comparing, when the matching hash value exists, first underlying data used to generate the hash value against second underlying data used to generate the matching hash value to determine whether the first and second underlying data are equivalent, and/or (d) adding, when the first and second underlying data are equivalent, an entry for the hash value in one or more of a hash collision table or a resolution dictionary ¶ [0110]);
determine whether the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values (The system can include (or otherwise utilize) at least one processor and/or memory, which can be configured to perform operations including generating, based on a database query, a plurality of hash values for at least a portion of one or more database tables. The operations can also include generating, for at least a portion of the plurality of hash values, a hash table based on comparing, for each of the plurality of hash values, the hash value against a list of hash values in the hash table to determine whether a matching hash value exists. The hash table can also be generated based on adding, when the matching hash value does not exist, the hash value to the list of hash values, and/or comparing, when the matching hash value exists, first underlying data used to generate the hash value against second underlying data used to generate the matching hash value to determine whether the first and second underlying data are equivalent ¶ [0004]. In various implementations, the generation of the hash table, the hash collision table, and/or the resolution dictionary can be based on (a) comparing, for each of the plurality of hash values, the hash value against a list of hash values in the hash table to determine whether a matching hash value exists, (b) adding, when the matching hash value does not exist, the hash value to the list of hash values, (c) comparing, when the matching hash value exists, first underlying data used to generate the hash value against second underlying data used to generate the matching hash value to determine whether the first and second underlying data are equivalent, and/or (d) adding, when the first and second underlying data are equivalent, an entry for the hash value in one or more of a hash collision table or a resolution dictionary ¶ [0110]); and
when the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values (hash table to determine whether a matching hash value exists ¶ [0110]-[0112]. Also see ¶ [0078], [0080]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Bensberg’s system would have allowed Vogelsgesang and Zhou to facilitate determine whether the first hash value exists in a list of query hash values; when the first hash value does not exist in the list of query hash values; determine whether the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values; when the second hash value exists in the list of query hash values. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Vogelsgesang and Zhou’s reference, because it is desirable to utilize hash collision procedures for relational operations that are more efficient and/or have lower overhead.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, (Canceled).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, (Canceled).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, (Canceled).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg discloses, comprises one or more of: the set of processing core resources includes one or more processing core resources (Bensberg: one or more of the operations described can occur in parallel with at least one other operation, such as in multi-processor and/or multi-core processing systems ¶ [0138]); and the query including one or more query statements that is executable by a processing core resource of the set of processing core resources (Bensberg: database query and/or a request to execute the database query. In some implementations, a database query may be executed multiple times (e.g., the processor 104 is frequently requested to execute the query). In such implementations, rather than calculating hash values and/or identifying hash collisions each time execution of the query is requested, it can be beneficial to store hashed values of at least a portion of the tables required for execution of the query. Accordingly, a hash table 150, a hash collision table 160, and/or a resolution dictionary 130 can be generated and/or stored based on a request to execute a database query, a request to store a database query, an optimizer determination (e.g., a determination that a database query is/will be executed frequently or a threshold number of times), and/or the like ¶ [0103]).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, (Canceled).
Claim(s) 24-26, 28, 34-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogelsgesang in view of Zhou in view of Bensberg in view of Plattner; Hasso et al. (US 20140310232 A1) [Plattner].
Regarding claims 24 and 34, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg discloses, wherein the state session defines a connection-specific context (Zhou: Query context may also be linked within the cached query ¶ [0099], The cached query instance may be linked to the query context based on a matching algorithm ¶ [0107], [0110]).
However, neither one of Vogelsgesang, Zhou or Bensberg explicitly facilitates wherein the set of processing core resources is further operable to: determine a schema based on a state session associated with the query, [wherein the state session defines a connection-specific context] including a set of special register values that resolve unqualified identifiers.
Plattner discloses, determine the schema based on a state session associated with the query (the schema may be referred to as the base schema of the query ¶ [0014], when a client issues a query …determining …an up to date results based on schema ¶ [0187]), … including a set of special register values that resolve unqualified identifiers (query compiled into execution plan using schema and attributes ¶ [0038]-[0040], examiner specifies that resolving identifiers happened via schema and attributes).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Plattner’s system would have allowed Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg to facilitate wherein the set of processing core resources is further operable to: determine a schema based on a state session associated with the query, [wherein the state session defines a connection-specific context] including a set of special register values that resolve unqualified identifiers. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg’s reference, because there is a need to improve columnar in-memory databases based on a main-delta architecture.
Regarding claims 25 and 35, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou, Bensberg and Plattner discloses, when the second hash value does not exist in the list of query hash values (Plattner: the cache management store does not comprise this hash value…¶ [0027]): process the query in accordance with a query processing procedure of the database system to produce the query resultant (Plattner: running the query against the entire schema to obtain up to date results ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou, Bensberg and Plattner discloses, store the query resultant and the second hash value in the list of query hash values (Plattner: storing a result of the query in the cache store [0187], the existence indicator is embodied by the hash value of query ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou, Bensberg and Plattner discloses, when the hash value exists in the list of query hash values: verify that a user submitting the query has permission to access the data of the dataset (Plattner: checking…whether there is a cache result ¶ [0027], system handling communications, processing, and access across machines ¶ [0102]-[0104]).
Claim(s) 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogelsgesang in view of Zhou in view of Bensberg in view of Munuhur Rajagopal (US 11138164 B1) [Rajagopal].
Regarding claims 40 and 41, the combination of Vogelsgesang, Zhou, and Bensberg teach all the limitationsof claims 1 and 30.
However, neither Vogelsgesang nor Stoddard explicitly facilitates without regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine not to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names; and with regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names.
Rajagopal discloses, without regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine not to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names; and with regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names (the data query engine 202 may coordinate with storage nodes to ensure that the correct version of the table-oriented schema is used. For example, upon changing a column of a data table, a storage node may send an update or notification to the data query engine 202, to enable data query engine 202 to update the table-oriented schema. In some cases, the storage nodes themselves may maintain a version of the table-oriented schema, may update it accordingly, and may sync back with the data query engine 202 to ensure the correct table-oriented schema version is used across the data storage system [col. 8, ll. 62-col. 9, ll. 7]. The “subscriberID” field may be a field that may identify the subscriber, or user/entity, of the schema table 300. In some examples, the “subscriberID” field may be utilized to determine a hash key, which may be utilized to determine an index. An index may be a data object associated with various keys. In various embodiments, queries may be issued directly to their indices. Indices may be utilized to support additional searches within a database. In various embodiments, an index may be utilized to identify one or more data objects [col. 9, ll. 39-48]. Also see [col. 11, ll. 44-57] and claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Rajagopal’s system would have allowed Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg to facilitate without regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine not to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names; and with regard to qualifying the set of table names, determine to associate a specific user submitting the query to the set of table names. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Vogelsgesang, Zhou and Bensberg’s reference, because there is a need for improved/efficient implementation of the schema changes across a database system, and a number of other challenges.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
7/10/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights