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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The first line of claim 8 recites "machine-storage medium" which, given the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and may include transitory propagating signals per se. Specification paragraph [0107] has no explicit definition restricting the "machine-storage media" to non-transitory type media and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that "machine-storage media" could include transitory type media. Since certain signals or carrier waves may be used to store multiple instructions. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 9-14 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend on.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of Patent No. 12,032,685 and 1-24 of Patent No. 11,487,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claim(s) of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by Patent No. 12,032,685 and 11,487,870.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if the double patent rejection, set forth in this Office action, are overcome.
The present application is a continuation of parent application no. 17/326646, filed on 05/21/2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11,487,870 (hereinafter application’ 870) and parent application no. 17/936770, filed on 09/22/2022, now U.S. Patent No. 12,032,685 (hereinafter application’ 685).
Each independent claims 1, 8 and 15, when compared with the parent application ’870 and ‘685, are found to be broader in scope than the respective independent claims of the parent application ’870 and ‘685. However, the inventive concept of the instant application is still the same as the parent applications. Specifically, the cited prior art on record does not specifically disclose, teach or suggest as a whole the limitation “receiving, by an execution platform in a network-based data system, a compiled query plan, the query plan including at least one external function and one or more logging properties, the one or more logging properties including a file master key; transmitting, by an external function operator provided in a first processor of the execution platform, logging instructions to a user defined function (UDF) server operating in a first programming language provided in a second processor of the execution platform; intercepting, by the UDF server, log data from a language-specific integration operating in a second programing language based on the logging instructions; streaming, by the UDF server, the log data to the external function operator” including all the other limitation recited in the independent claims.
The limitations of the independent claims were searched, but did not result in any applicable prior art. After further consideration, each of the independent claims as a whole are allowable.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are also allowable for incorporating the allowable feature recited in the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (Patent No.: US 5,983,228) - Parallel database management method and parallel database management system
Tkach et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0007156) - Injecting patch code at runtime
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s acting supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571) 270-5143. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8729.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437