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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25
has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant's arguments and amendments filed on
12/30/25, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed on 10/01/25.
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that
follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 19-22 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being un patentable over He et al. (US 2011/0270871 A1) in view of Nadeau et al. (US 2023/0098227 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a system comprising:
at least one hardware processor, (See He paragraph [0081], hardware architecture,,,the computer includes a processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising, (See He paragraph [0084], The software in memory 1310 may include one or more separate programs, each of which comprises an ordered listing of executable instructions):
parsing a table definition to determine a lag duration value, an external volume indicator, (See He paragraph [0027], an iceberg query only aggregates a few attributes on a table containing a large number attributes. As such, the query processor still has to read through all the columns in the table, which can be very expensive. Once again, disk access time is saved because a compressed bitmap index is smaller than the raw data).
generating a dynamic Iceberg table based on the table definition, the generating comprising, (See He paragraph [0043], the algorithm icebergDP…generate iceberg results nor contribute to dynamic pruning. For example, if a table has 100,000 tuples, its attribute A has 10,000 unique values, and attribute B has 10,000 unique values):
selecting an external storage volume of a network-based database system, (See He paragraph [0086], The network 1365 can be an IP-based network for communication between the computer 1301 and any external server, client and the like via a broadband connection. The network 1365 transmits and receives data between the computer 1301 and external systems); the external storage volume identified by the external volume indicator, (See He paragraph [0057],a tracking pointer can be implemented for each vector to point to the memory location…(i.e., it is a memory pointer pointing to the middle of a bitmap vector), and pass the pointers to the bitwise AND function),
storing a base Iceberg table at a storage location associated with the external storage volume, (See He paragraph [0027], row-oriented databases, tuples are stored according to rows. As such, in typical warehouse applications, an iceberg query only aggregates a few attributes on a table containing a large number attributes); the storage location identified by the location indicator, (See He paragraph [0057], a tracking pointer can be implemented for each vector to point to the memory location containing the first untouched 1 (i.e., it is a memory pointer pointing to the middle of a bitmap vector), and pass the pointers to the bitwise AND function. A bitwise AND operation can start from the location to which the tracking pointer points) and
configuring the base Iceberg table as the dynamic Iceberg table based on the lag duration value, (See He paragraph [0043], the algorithm icebergDP…generate iceberg results nor contribute to dynamic pruning. For example, if a table has 100,000 tuples, its attribute A has 10,000 unique values, and attribute B has 10,000 unique values), the lag duration value indicating a maximum time period that a result of a prior refresh of the dynamic Iceberg table lags behind a current time instance, (See He paragraph [0047], Iceberg Processing with Vector Alignment and Dynamic Pruning icebergPQ (attribute A, attribute B, threshold T) Output: iceberg results 1:).
He does not explicitly disclose the base Iceberg table comprising a metadata layer with at least one metadata file listing a plurality of snapshots of the base Iceberg table.
However, Nadeau teaches the base Iceberg table comprising a metadata layer with at least one metadata file listing a plurality of snapshots of the base Iceberg table, (See Nadeau paragraph [0103] For table formats such as Apache Iceberg Nessie needs to track both the pointer to the Iceberg “Table Metadata” which is tracked as “global-state” and the Iceberg snapshot-ID which is tracked per Nessie-named-reference).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify the base Iceberg table comprising a metadata layer with at least one metadata file listing a plurality of snapshots of the base Iceberg table of Nadeau in order to effectively manage the larger volumes of data due to cost and technology limitations.
Claims 11 and 21 and recite the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore,
Claims 11 and 21 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, He taught the system according to claim 1, as described above. He further teaches the operations further comprising: parsing the table definition to determine a catalog value, (See He paragraph [0035], iceberg queries have a monotone property such that for an iceberg query on multiple attributes Cl, . . . , Cn with threshold T, if a group of values cl, . . . , cn (ci 2 Ci, for each i) is in the iceberg).
Claims 12 and 22 and recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 12 and 22 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, He taught the system according to claim 1, as described above. He further teaches the operations further comprising: parsing the table definition, (See He paragraph [0025], categorized as the tuple-scan based approach, which requires at least one table scan to read data from disk), to determine a compute warehouse of the network-based database system, (See He paragraph [0086], The network 1365 can be an IP-based network for communication between the computer 1301 and any external server, client and the like via a broadband connection); and
He does not explicitly disclose selecting the external storage volume from the compute warehouse.
However, Nadeau teaches selecting the external storage volume from the compute warehouse, (See Nadeau paragraph [0387, The network interface device 712 enables the computing system 700 to mediate data in a network 714 with an entity that is external to the computing system 700 through any communication protocol supported by the computing system 700 and the external entity. Examples of the network interface device 712 include a network adaptor card, a wireless network interface card, a router, an access point).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify selecting the external storage volume from the compute warehouse of Nadeau in order to effectively manage the larger volumes of data due to cost and technology limitations.
Claims 19 and 29 and recite the same limitations as claim 9 above. Therefore,
Claims 19 and 29 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, He taught the system according to claim 1, as described above. He further teaches the operations further comprising:
performing a refresh of the dynamic Iceberg table to generate a second dynamic Iceberg table, (See He paragraph [0101], warehouse applications is that an iceberg query only aggregate a few attributes on a table containing a large number attributes…the query processor still has to read through all the columns in the table),
configuring the second dynamic Iceberg table with a change tracking column, (See He paragraph [0101], warehouse applications is that an iceberg query only aggregate a few attributes on a table containing a large number attributes…the query processor still has to read through all the columns in the table), the change tracking column including a change in data of the dynamic Iceberg table as a result of the refresh, (See He paragraph [0101], warehouse applications is that an iceberg query only aggregate a few attributes on a table containing a large number attributes…the query processor still has to read through all the columns in the table).
Claims 20 and 30 recite the same limitations as claim 10 above. Therefore,
Claims 20 and 30 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 5-6, 15-16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being un patentable over He et al. (US 2011/0270871 A1) in view of Nadeau et al. (US 2023/0098227 A1) and further in view of Kurian et al. (US 20180309768 A1).
Regarding claim 5, He taught the system according to claim 4, as described above.
He together with Nadeau does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is not the network-based database system.
However, Kurian teaches the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is not the network-based database system, (See Kurian paragraph [0051], verify 419 that the one or more intended recipients of the sub-file(s)/document(s) are validated recipients and/or that the sub-files/documents 414 are validated sub-files/documents 414…that the sub-file(s)/documents 414 are validated documents 454. In the event that an intended recipient is not validated and/or a sub-file/document has not previously been validated).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is not the network-based database system of Kurian in order process the one or more documents by accessing the entity database, via the distributed computing network, (See Kurian paragraph [0010]).
Claims 15 and 25 recite the same limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore,
Claims 15 and 25 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 6, He taught the system according to claim 4, as described above.
He together with Nadeau does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is missing from the catalog value.
However, Kurian teaches the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is missing from the catalog value, (See Kurian paragraph [0051], verify 419 that the one or more intended recipients of the sub-file(s)/document(s) are validated recipients and/or that the sub-files/documents 414 are validated sub-files/documents...that the sub-file(s)/documents 414 are validated documents 454. In the event that an intended recipient is not validated and/or a sub-file/document has not previously been validated).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify the operations further comprising: outputting an error indication when the verification indicates the management entity is missing from the catalog value of Kurian in order process the one or more documents by accessing the entity database, via the distributed computing network, (See Kurian paragraph [0010]).
Claims 16 and 26 recite the same limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore,
Claims 16 and 25 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being un patentable over He et al. (US 2011/0270871 A1) in view of Nadeau et al. (US 2023/0098227 A1) and further in view of Mimatsu et al. (US 2008/0104193 A1).
Regarding claim 7, He taught the system according to claim 1, as described above.
He together with Nadeau does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: selecting a file path in the external storage volume based on the location indicator.
However, Mimatsu teaches the operations further comprising: selecting a file path in the external storage volume based on the location indicator, (See Mimatsu paragraph [0011], The computer program comprises code for selecting a first path to a target volume using a path table managed by the host computer, the target volume being a storage volume in the external storage system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify the operations further comprising: selecting a file path in the external storage volume based on the location indicator of Mimatsu in order to access the storage volumes of the external storage system via the other platform storage system, (See Mimatsu paragraph [0007]).
Claims 17 and 27 and recite the same limitations as claim 7 above. Therefore,
Claims 17 and 27 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 8, He taught the system according to claim 7, as described above.
He together with Nadeau does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: storing the base Iceberg table in the external storage volume based on the selected file path.
However, Mimatsu teaches the operations further comprising: storing the base Iceberg table in the external storage volume based on the selected file path, (See Mimatsu paragraph [0011], A first path to a target volume is selected using a path table managed by the host computer, the target volume being a storage volume in the external storage system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify the operations further comprising: storing the base Iceberg table in the external storage volume based on the selected file path of Mimatsu in order to access the storage volumes of the external storage system via the other platform storage system, (See Mimatsu paragraph [0007]).
Claims 18 and 28 and recite the same limitations as claim 8 above. Therefore,
Claims 18 and 28 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Sedrak et al. (US 12, 411, 809 B2), a snapshot of the metadata of the data change; and storing the snapshot in a network-connected storage medium separate from the data repository, storing the snapshot occurring either in response to a user storage request or at regularly scheduled intervals.
Glass et al. (US 2023/0222589 A1) allows a user to initiate an iceberg order, e.g., via an API request, in a manner that ensures that when a current/pending order for an iceberg is utilized to satisfy an executed trade and the resulting quantity remaining for the pending order is zero or otherwise below a predetermined threshold, a new order is automatically submitted to the order book for the iceberg order at a latency of the exchange system (also referred to herein as an exchange system latency) rather than at a latency introduced by network/API messaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUEMEBET GURMU whose telephone number is (571)270-7095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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 at 5712724078. 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.
/MULUEMEBET GURMU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163