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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered
35 USC § 101: 35 USC § 101: These issues have been resolved and the rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments and arguments.
35 USC § 102 & 35 USC § 103:
Regarding Applicant’s Argument (pages 10-13): Examiner’s response:- Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20140156823 A1; Liu; Hewei et al. (hereinafter Liu).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-4,6,8-12,14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220197910 A1; Gladwin; S. Christopher et al. (hereinafter Gladwin) in view of US 20140156823 A1; Liu; Hewei et al. (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Gladwin teaches A computer-implemented method for filtering a data record against a set of pre-defined rules, comprising: receiving, by a computer processor, a set of pre-defined rules, where the number of rules is on the order of thousands or more, each rule in the set of pre-defined rules includes one or more conditions and an action taken when the one or more conditions are satisfied; (Gladwin [0152] rules 555 in the ruleset 550 can have one or more corresponding parameters 556 indicating conditions in which the rule 555 is applicable to a given query and/or result set. For example, a parameter 556 can indicate a particular provider's data to which the rule applies and/or a particular field to which the rule applies. These parameters 556 can be sent to the compliance module 580 in conjunction with the requested rules. [0163] requirements for pre-execution rules applicable to the query. The pre-execution compliance module 610 can utilize the received user usage data to determine if historical and/or recent record usage by user meets usage restrictions for pre-execution rules applicable to the query. In some cases, this information is compared to parameters 556 relating to user subscription level and/or user usage data to determine a proper subset of a set of pre-execution rules that are applicable to query. [167] rules with parameters 556 that match and/or include one or more of the subset of provider IDs, subset of tables, and/or subset of fields indicated in the request sent by the pre-execution compliance module 610 are retrieved. Alternatively or in addition, the pre-execution compliance module 610 can receive provider rulesets; can access previously received rulesets for the provider and/or one or more fields; and/or can access locally stored user provider rulesets. In such embodiments, the query processing system 114 can reduce utilization of resources by retrieving, and/or utilizing in the comparison, only the rulesets set by the provider IDs that supplies records to one or more fields involved in a particular query being evaluated, and/or only the rules that pertain to particular fields involved in the particular query being evaluated. [0191] Utilization rulesets can correspond to rules regarding any other utilization of records in executing the query, for example, utilized in any intermediate result sets and/or utilized to filter or otherwise determine any intermediate or final values or sets of records. For example, the utilization ruleset can include rules that apply to filtering a set of records via the WHERE clause and/or via another filtering mechanism. In particular, conditioning a particular field in the WHERE clause may be restricted, as this condition...[222] a predetermined set of rules configured by a regulating entity and/or administrator may be set at a threshold minimum level of strictness for rules relating to privacy and/or identity matching. [219-227] elaborate on receiving, by a computer processor, a set of pre-defined rules, each rule in the set of pre-defined rules includes one or more conditions and an action taken when the one or more conditions are satisfied [133,388,589-596] show that under the obviousness nature of the rejection there can be thousands of possible different rules applied [FIG.6A-7A] show receiving, by a computer processor, a set of pre-defined rules, each rule in the set of pre-defined rules includes one or more conditions and an action taken when the one or more conditions are satisfied) where each entry in the ordered list of conditions represents one condition from the set of pre-defined rules and each condition in the ordered list of conditions depends on only one field in a given data record; (Gladwin [219] . Each rule 1015 can further indicate one or more rule parameters 556, denoting the conditions under which this particular forbidden fields grouping 1016 is applicable to a given query and/or given result set, as discussed in conjunction with FIG. 5C. For example, the query processing system 114 can determine to retrieve and or utilize a given forbidden fields grouping 1016, and/or can otherwise determine a given forbidden fields grouping 1016 is applicable to a given query or result set, based on determining that the corresponding parameters 556 compare favorably to corresponding parameters determined by the query processing system 114 for the given query and/or result set. [0222] In other embodiments, some or all of the rules entered via user input as illustrated in FIGS. 10B, 11B, 12B, 13B, 14B, and 15B can be automatically generated by the analytics system 110, for example, where the user of GUI 245 can override an automatically determined ruleset of preset rules. In such embodiments, a user may only be allowed to further restrict rules in such a predetermined set of rules by only increasing the conditions for non-compliance in the predetermined set of rules. In particular, a predetermined set of rules configured by a regulating entity and/or administrator may be set at a threshold minimum level of strictness for rules relating to privacy and/or identity matching. [0341] A rule 1515 can further include record criteria 1556, indicating whether the rule 1515 applies to a particular record. This record criteria 1556 can be considered a further parameter of the query and/or result set itself, for example, where a rule 1515 is applicable to a given query and/or result set if it includes at least one record that meets the record criteria 1556 of the rule 1515. The record criteria can indicate age limits and/or bounds of the record, where the rule applies only to records within a given age range. The record criteria 1556 can indicate the rule applies to records of a particular type, such as records included within a particular table, records that include one or more particular fields, and/or records whose data was collected by a particular data collection device. The record criteria can indicate one or more record identifiers, indicating the rule applies only to records with identifiers that match an identifier indicated in the record criteria. While the provider ID is indicated separately in FIG. 15A, the provider ID can also be considered record criteria, indicating that the rule applies to records supplied by a particular provider. [342-345] elaborate on the matter [FIG.4C & 9A] show corresponding visual) for each given rule in the set of pre-defined rules, connecting, by the computer processor, conditions in the ordered list of conditions that are associated with a given rule by logical operators to form a transformed rule corresponding to the given rule in the set of pre-defined rules, thereby forming a set of transformed rules; (Gladwin [0069] FIG. 25 is a logic diagram illustrating an example of a method of enforcing a set of rules by applying a rule hierarchy; [419] rule U can be amended automatically to render at least one possible condition where compliance can be achieved for both rule T and amended rule U. For example, rule U can be amended to indicate that aggregations cannot be performed on more than 550 records, where compliance is possible for aggregations performed on between 500 and 550 of the provider's records. [420] the provider to amend their rule in response to the provider device receiving indication that this rule was superseded, and the user can enter an amended rule to the GUI 245 in response. The GUI 245 can display the superseding rule and/or the rule provided by the provider that conflicts with the superseding rule. The GUI 245 indicate possible edits to the current rule to guide the user in providing a rule that does not conflict with the superseding rule. For example, the GUI 245 can indicate that if the user edits their rule [0421] The amended rule can be transmitted to the analytics system for processing by the rule hierarchy generating module 1610 to determine if this rule conflicts and/or to re-generate the rule hierarchy 1620 to include the amended rule.[0423] Thus, in some embodiments, updated rulesets for providers 1-N can be received over time, new rulesets for new data providers to the analytics system 110 can be received over time, and/or updated regulatory requirements based on updated privacy laws and/or other updated regulatory restrictions can be received over time. The rule hierarchy generating module 1610 can therefore generate updated rule hierarchies [597] the ordering of rules of the application of rules as indicated by the rule hierarchy can be applied, and/or any amended rules of the rule hierarchy can be applied. In some cases, some or all of the query is executed by executing at least one query function of the query against a database system to determine an intermediate and/or final result set. [417-425] elaborates on the matter) receiving, by the computer processor, a data record having one or more data fields; and evaluating, by the computer processor, the data record in relation to the set of transformed rules. (Gladwin [FIG.4C] shows receiving, by the computer processor, a data record having one or more data fields; and evaluating, by the computer processor, the data record in relation to the set of transformed rules [168] supplies records in a particular result set being evaluated, and/or only the rules that pertain to particular fields involved in the particular result set being evaluated [353] a particular record meets record criteria 1556 and/or the query meets the parameters 556, a record being accessed in the query can be evaluated for compliance with the rule 1515 based on determining whether previous access to other records by the same or different user are deemed forbidden by the other record usage requirements. In particular, particular field IDs or field groupings accessed for different records previously, record criteria for these other records, number of other records accessed that meet particular criteria, time frames in which these records were accessed, user IDs or types of users that performed the previous access, and/or other criteria can be denoted that, when met by the previous accesses logged in the database usage log 454, render non-compliance with the corresponding the rule 1515 [0379] For each of the applicable set of records, ones of the applicable rules 1515 that has record criteria the record meets can then be evaluated. For example, the time window 1516 for rule 1515 determined to be applicable to the query based on parameters 556 and/or determined to be applicable to at least one record in the result set based on record criteria 1556 can be evaluated to determine whether or not access of the record is currently allowed.[0380] Evaluation of a record's adherence to some rules 1515 can require retrieval of information regarding previous accesses of the record by the same user and/or by any user. For example, the usage data corresponding to each of these records can retrieved from the query logging system 450, given the record identifiers for these records.) Gladwin explicitly and orderly teaching all of enumerating, by the computer processor, conditions in the set of pre-defined rules for form an ordered list of conditions, removinq, by the computer processor select conditions from the ordered list of conditions, where each of the select conditions is preceded by an identical or logically complementary condition having identical fields and values in the ordered list of conditions However Liu teaches enumerating, by the computer processor, conditions in the set of pre-defined rules for form an ordered list of conditions, (Liu [0008] and a rule matcher, where: the mixed orchestrator is configured to perform a mixed orchestration on all service rules corresponding to multiple service applications running on the network device, so as to extract conditions of all the service rules, where each service rule includes two parts: a condition and an action, and use the extracted conditions to construct at least one condition set, and generate mapping relationship data for recording a mapping relationship between each service rule and a condition in the condition set; the condition matcher is configured to perform, according to each condition set constructed by the mixed orchestrator,[0010] According to the first possible implementation of the first aspect, in a second possible implementation, the mapping unit is specifically configured to: map each condition in the condition set to all service rules including the condition, so as to establish a mapping relationship between each service rule and a condition in the condition set, and generate mapping relationship data for recording the mapping relationship; [0048] generate mapping relationship data for recording a mapping relationship between each service rule and the condition in the service rule. [FIG.4 in conjunction with FIG.7] shows corresponding visual) removing, by the computer processor select conditions from the ordered list of conditions, where each of the select conditions is preceded by an identical or logically complementary condition having identical fields and values in the ordered list of conditions (Liu [0009] a duplicate condition filtering and removing unit, configured to extract the conditions obtained by splitting by the splitting unit, and remove duplicate conditions; a condition classifying unit, configured to classify conditions that are left after the duplicate conditions are removed by the duplicate condition filtering and removing unit, so as to obtain at least one type of condition set; and a mapping unit, configured to generate mapping relationship data for recording a mapping relationship between each service rule and a condition in the condition set.[0060] First, each service rule is split, that is, each service rule is split into a condition and an action, and the mapping relationship between the rule and the condition is recorded; in FIG. 6, URL="url-1", URL="url-2", IP="128.1.1.1", and so on are all conditions; alert threat1, block, and alert threat 2 are all actions; then, duplicate conditions are removed from all the conditions obtained by splitting, for example, conditions of IPS-rule2 and WOC-rule1 are duplicate, and conditions of URLF-rule1 and ADC-rule1 are duplicate; after the duplicate conditions are removed, it is further necessary to adjust the mapping relationship between the condition and the rule, for example, the condition IP="128.1.1.1" shown in FIG. 6, after the duplicate conditions are removed, needs to be mapped to the two rules of IPS-rule2 and WOC-rule1, and the condition URL="url-2" needs to be mapped to URLF-rule1 and ADC-rule1; then the conditions that are left after duplicate conditions are removed are classified, as shown in FIG. 6, URL related conditions are classified into one type, and IP related conditions are classified into one type, forming a URL condition set and an IP condition set.[73-81] further elaborates [FIG.4 in conjunction with FIG.7] shows corresponding visual) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take all prior methods and make the addition of Liu in order to improve the efficiency of the system via methods such as eliminating unnecessary data ( Liu [0005] used to improve translation quality significantly. Services that provide translation features use a number of other machine learning techniques to reduce errors and improve the speed of computation for this process, but in essence, the practice of building a grammar and executing it is a quintessential step in effective translation. As a result, there are various mechanisms for inducting lingual grammars and ontologies that have been made efficient enough for practical use through years of refinement by industry players. For example, many popular translation tools use language models that are constantly updated based on popular usage to improve accuracy and efficiency around new uses of language and jargon. Additionally, advanced methods of chunking have been developed to improve the performance of such systems.[0079] A, Input 2 cases (case 1-green and case 2-red) B) Automatically induce grammars for each case, C) search for and remove duplicate rules; rules are given unique identifiers to facilitate efficient processing, D) process the frequency of each rule in the original cases and, E) treat the cases as vectors in a vector space of rules. For this example, only two rules are visualized, rule three on the x-axis and rule one on the y-axis.)
Corresponding product claim 9 is rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Additional Limitations: computer readable medium capable of reading and executing instructions (Gladwin [438] , a non-transitory computer readable storage medium includes at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes...[605&625] elaborate on the matter [FIG.4A] show the system with computer readable medium capable of reading and executing instructions)
Regarding claim 2, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 1 further comprises receiving another data record, and evaluating the another data record in relation to the set of transformed rules. (Gladwin [FIG.4C] shows receiving, by the computer processor, a data record having one or more data fields; and evaluating, by the computer processor, the data record in relation to the set of transformed rules [168] supplies records in a particular result set being evaluated, and/or only the rules that pertain to particular fields involved in the particular result set being evaluated [353] a particular record meets record criteria 1556 and/or the query meets the parameters 556, a record being accessed in the query can be evaluated for compliance with the rule 1515 based on determining whether previous access to other records by the same or different user are deemed forbidden by the other record usage requirements. In particular, particular field IDs or field groupings accessed for different records previously, record criteria for these other records, number of other records accessed that meet particular criteria, time frames in which these records were accessed, user IDs or types of users that performed the previous access, and/or other criteria can be denoted that, when met by the previous accesses logged in the database usage log 454, render non-compliance with the corresponding the rule 1515 [0379] For each of the applicable set of records, ones of the applicable rules 1515 that has record criteria the record meets can then be evaluated. For example, the time window 1516 for rule 1515 determined to be applicable to the query based on parameters 556 and/or determined to be applicable to at least one record in the result set based on record criteria 1556 can be evaluated to determine whether or not access of the record is currently allowed.[0380] Evaluation of a record's adherence to some rules 1515 can require retrieval of information regarding previous accesses of the record by the same user and/or by any user. For example, the usage data corresponding to each of these records can retrieved from the query logging system 450, given the record identifiers for these records. )
Corresponding product claim 10 is rejected similarly as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 1 wherein evaluating the data record further comprises processing the set of transformed rules sequentially in ascending order. (Gladwin [0400] an ordering can be further indicated for the application of each overlapping ruleset to dictate a full sequential ordering all of the rules 555. Similarly, if there is only a single overlapping ruleset, a full sequential ordering ruleset can similarly be dictated for the full ruleset 550. In some cases, the ordering can be conditioned on compliance data of previously applied rules, such as whether the compliance data indicates compliance or non-compliance, where a first next rule is applied when a previous rule's compliance data indicates compliance, and where a different next rule is applied when the previous rule's compliance data indicates non-compliance.[0587] Step 2504 includes generating a rule hierarchy based on plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include determining an optimal ordering for applying rules in each set of query rules and/or determining an optimal ordering for applying all rules in the plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include combining two or more rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include amending and/or removing at least one rule. [588-594] elaborate on the matter)
Corresponding product claim 11 is rejected similarly as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 3 wherein the data record is evaluated in relation to the set of transformed rules by evaluating each condition in the ordered list of conditions in relation to the data record; (Gladwin [FIG.4C] wherein the data record is evaluated in relation to the set of transformed rules by evaluating each condition in the ordered list of conditions in relation to the data record [353] a particular record meets record criteria 1556 and/or the query meets the parameters 556, a record being accessed in the query can be evaluated for compliance with the rule 1515 based on determining whether previous access to other records by the same or different user are deemed forbidden by the other record usage requirements. In particular, particular field IDs or field groupings accessed for different records previously, record criteria for these other records, number of other records accessed that meet particular criteria, time frames in which these records were accessed, user IDs or types of users that performed the previous access, and/or other criteria can be denoted that, when met by the previous accesses logged in the database usage log 454, render non-compliance with the corresponding the rule 1515 [0379] For each of the applicable set of records, ones of the applicable rules 1515 that has record criteria the record meets can then be evaluated. For example, the time window 1516 for rule 1515 determined to be applicable to the query based on parameters 556 and/or determined to be applicable to at least one record in the result set based on record criteria 1556 can be evaluated to determine whether or not access of the record is currently allowed.[0380] Evaluation of a record's adherence to some rules 1515 can require retrieval of information regarding previous accesses of the record by the same user and/or by any user. For example, the usage data corresponding to each of these records can retrieved from the query logging system 450, given the record identifiers for these records.) evaluating the logical operators in the set of transformed rules; (Gladwin [203] evaluation of the corresponding pre-execution rules... [331] given rule 1415 being evaluated by the temporal access limits compliance module 1420 for compliance. [380] a particular rule 1515 being evaluated indicates restrictions... limits compliance module...[0388] FIGS. 16A-16F illustrate embodiments that utilize a rule hierarchy 1620. The rule hierarchy 1620 can be utilized by the query processing system 114 to consolidate the application of various rules of the ruleset 550 discussed herein, and/or to dictate how and/or when the various rules discussed herein will be applied. The rule hierarchy 1620 be configured to dictate mechanisms for use by the query processing system 114 to segregate application of different types of rules as discussed in accordance with other embodiments herein; to separately evaluate... their filtering parameters compare favorably to a given query and/or result set as discussed in accordance with other embodiments herein; to only allow configuration and/or application of rules [394] conditions can be checked for the given query and/or result set and indicated in the compliance data for the rule. Alternatively, a separate check can be applied, for example, before applying the rules with same overlapping non-compliance conditions and/or overlapping compliance requirements, to check for the overlapping non-compliance conditions and/or overlapping compliance requirements themselves. [402] the evaluation of any remaining rules as soon as one rule is determined to have compliance data indicating non-compliance, as this single rule being non-compliance dictates that the query as a whole is non-compliant...[408-4414] elaborate on validating the transformed rules and their corresponding logical operators) and for each transformed rule in the set of transformed rules, executing the action associated with a given transformed rule the data record matches the given transformed rule. (Gladwin [0162] As illustrated in FIGS. 6B-6C, the pre-execution compliance module 610 and/or the runtime compliance module 625 can utilize additional data to determine whether a query complies with the pre-execution ruleset, and/or to determine whether result set data complies with the runtime ruleset, respectively. As illustrated in FIG. 6B, user usage data and/or user subscription data can be received for usage by the pre-execution compliance module 610. For example, the pre-execution compliance module 610 can generate a request for transmission to the user management system 440 indicating a user ID corresponding to the end user that generated and/or transmitted the query to be evaluated, and record usage data and/or subscription data for that particular end user can be transmitted by the user management system for use by the pre-execution compliance module 610 in response. Alternatively or in addition, the pre-execution compliance module 610 can generate a request for transmission to the query logging system[0172] For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6G, the query execution module facilitates execution of partial query i to determine partial result set i, for example, as a result of partial queries 1 to (i−1) having already been performed and their corresponding partial results sets 1 to (i−1) having already been determined to comply with the runtime rules. The runtime compliance module evaluates partial result set i to generate compliance data i. In this case, the compliance data indicates the runtime rules are adhered to, and thus the query execution module is instructed to continue processing the query. [219-227] elaborate on for each transformed rule in the set of transformed rules, executing the action associated with a given transformed rule when conditions for the given transformed rule are satisfied by the data record [FIG.6A-7A] visually show for each transformed rule in the set of transformed rules, executing the action associated with a given transformed rule when conditions for the given transformed rule are satisfied by the data record)
Corresponding product claim 12 is rejected similarly as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 4 further comprises executing an action for a particular transformed rule that modifies value of a given data field in the data record; (Gladwin [106] Data providers can select and/or customize record storage requirement data, which can indicate how and/or where different types of records and/or different types of fields supplied by the data provider are stored by the database system 112. The record storage requirement data can be utilized to write records supplied by the data provider to the database system, for example, by dictating how these records are encrypted and/or where these records are physically located. [0218] In particular, different forbidden fields can be customized and enforced for data supplied by different providers. In some cases, different forbidden fields within a same total set of fields of a standardized record type that populates one or more same tables can be customized for different providers. Different forbidden fields can be customized [0307] In particular, different maximum number of queries, records, and/or fields within a particular timeframe can be customized and enforced for data supplied by different providers. Different maximum number of queries, records, and/or fields within a particular timeframe can be customized and enforced for data accessed by users at differing subscription levels. [FIG.4C-5A] shows a loop like process which shows an action for a particular transformed rule that modifies value of a given data field in the data record) re-evaluating conditions in the ordered list of conditions that depend upon the value of the given data field; re-evaluating the logical operators in the set of transformed rules; (Gladwin [FIG.4C-5A] shows a loop like process which allows a re-evaluations of the conditions and corresponding logical operators of the rules [105] customize record usage restriction data, which can indicate a particular set of rules or other restrictions on the usage of their data by end users. As discussed in further detail herein, the record usage restriction data can be utilized by the query processing system 114 to ensure that data that was supplied by the data provider is queried and accessed in adherence with the of rules administered by the data provider [593] first rule can be amended in response to determining the second rule supersedes the first rule, where an amended first rule is generated based on the set of possible conditions for non-compliance indicated by a second rule. In particular, the amended first rule is generated to include no conditions required for compliance that are included in the set of possible conditions for non-compliance indicated by the second rule, for example, by removing any conditions required for compliance that intersect with the set of possible conditions for non-compliance indicated by the second rule. and continue processing the set of transformed rules sequentially starting from the particular transformed rule. (Gladwin [0400] an ordering can be further indicated for the application of each overlapping ruleset to dictate a full sequential ordering all of the rules 555. Similarly, if there is only a single overlapping ruleset, a full sequential ordering ruleset can similarly be dictated for the full ruleset 550. In some cases, the ordering can be conditioned on compliance data of previously applied rules, such as whether the compliance data indicates compliance or non-compliance, where a first next rule is applied when a previous rule's compliance data indicates compliance, and where a different next rule is applied when the previous rule's compliance data indicates non-compliance [0587] Step 2504 includes generating a rule hierarchy based on plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include determining an optimal ordering for applying rules in each set of query rules and/or determining an optimal ordering for applying all rules in the plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include combining two or more rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include amending and/or removing at least one rule. [588-594] elaborate on the matter)
Corresponding product claim 14 is rejected similarly as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 1 further comprises grouping conditions in the ordered list of conditions by data field prior to the step of evaluating the data record in relation to the set of transformed rules. (Gladwin [0166] As illustrated in FIGS. 6D-6E, the pre-execution compliance module 610 and/or the runtime compliance module 625 can filter the rulesets that are applied to utilize only rulesets set by for applicable providers and/or fields to determine whether a query complies with the pre-execution ruleset, and/or to determine whether result set data complies with the runtime ruleset, respectively. [222] a predetermined set of rules configured by a regulating entity and/or administrator may be set at a threshold minimum level of strictness for rules relating to privacy and/or identity matching. [389] a set of rules to be applied; an ordering of the set of rules to be applied in sequence; and/or an indication one or more subsets of the set of rules to be applied that can be processed in parallel and/or in any order. A determined subset of rules that apply to a particular query and/or result set, and/or all rules 555, can be applied by the compliance module in accordance with the rule hierarchy 1620 to generate the compliance data.[0399] In some cases, the compliance modules 1-R for the set of providers 1-R of FIGS. 9A and 9B can each be implemented as overlapping rulesets 1622 and/or rules within compliance modules 1-R can be ordered utilizing techniques to order rules within overlapping rulesets 1622. [407-416] go into detail on enumerating, by the computer processor, conditions in the set of pre-defined rules for form an ordered list of conditions, where each condition in the ordered list of conditions is univariate [FIG.9A-9C] show corresponding visual)
Corresponding product claim 16 is rejected similarly as claim 8 above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladwin in view of Liu and US 20240168950 A1; Cruanes; Thierry et al. (hereinafter Cruanes).
Regarding claim 5, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 4 wherein evaluating the logical operators in the set of transformed … where the select rules have at least one condition that is not satisfied by the data record. (Gladwin [0152] rules 555 in the ruleset 550 can have one or more corresponding parameters 556 indicating conditions in which the rule 555 is applicable to a given query and/or result set. For example, a parameter 556 can indicate a particular provider's data to which the rule applies and/or a particular field to which the rule applies. These parameters 556 can be sent to the compliance module 580 in conjunction with the requested rules.[0230] ... indicating whether compliance with rules 1015 is achieved ... can indicate non-compliance.. [219-227] elaborate on checking when the one or more conditions or rules are satisfied or not satisfied [FIG.6A-7A] show checking when the one or more conditions or rules are satisfied or not satisfied) the combination does not teach skipping select rules However Cruanes teaches the logical operators in the set of transformed rules includes skipping select rules (Gladwin [0152] rules 555 in the ruleset 550 can have one or more corresponding parameters 556 indicating conditions in which the rule 555 is applicable to a given query and/or result set. For example, a parameter 556 can indicate a particular provider's data to which the rule applies and/or a particular field to which the rule applies. These parameters 556 can be sent to the compliance module 580 in conjunction with the requested rules.[0230] ... indicating whether compliance with rules 1015 is achieved ... can indicate non-compliance.. [219-227] elaborate on checking when the one or more conditions or rules are satisfied or not satisfied [FIG.6A-7A] show checking when the one or more conditions or rules are satisfied or not satisfied ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take all prior methods and make the addition of Cruanes in order to create a more efficient system via dynamic changes to the system rules (Cruanes [0080] For subsequent stages and/or rewrite rules, the added class may be included in the comparison to determine whether those subsequent stages and/or rewrite rules can be skipped or modified. [0081] Referring back to FIG. 6, at operation 612, the revised query plan may be assigned to and executed by one or more XPs after the specified compilation stages and/or rewrite rules have been skipped.[0082] Rewrite rules may be skipped using the techniques described herein. Moreover, in some embodiments, rewrite rule creation can be skipped, which can conserve further memory and resource usage. [0095] The dynamic compilation techniques described herein can lead to resource and time savings. By skipping or modifying stages and/or rewrite rules, resources can be saved by not allocating memory for a skipped stage or rewrite rule (i.e., save memory allocation cost). Moreover, computational resources can be saved. For example, to apply a rewrite rule, the compiler receives a query plan node and scan nodes one-by-one to see if the rule applies so skipping the rewrite rule can lead to significant computational as well as time savings.)
Corresponding product claim 13 is rejected similarly as claim 5 above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladwin in view of Liu and US 20240168950 A1; Cruanes; Thierry et al. (hereinafter Cruanes).
Regarding claim 5, Gladwin and Liu teach The method of claim 6 further comprises continue processing the set of transformed rules sequentially starting from a first transformed rule in the set of transformed rules (Gladwin [0400] an ordering can be further indicated for the application of each overlapping ruleset to dictate a full sequential ordering all of the rules 555. Similarly, if there is only a single overlapping ruleset, a full sequential ordering ruleset can similarly be dictated for the full ruleset 550. In some cases, the ordering can be conditioned on compliance data of previously applied rules, such as whether the compliance data indicates compliance or non-compliance, where a first next rule is applied when a previous rule's compliance data indicates compliance, and where a different next rule is applied when the previous rule's compliance data indicates non-compliance.[0587] Step 2504 includes generating a rule hierarchy based on plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include determining an optimal ordering for applying rules in each set of query rules and/or determining an optimal ordering for applying all rules in the plurality of sets of query rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include combining two or more rules. Generating the rule hierarchy can include amending and/or removing at least one rule. [588-594] elaborate on the matter) the combination lack explicitly and orderly teaching when at least one logical operator is a negation operator. However Boehme teaches when at least one logical operator is a negation operator (Boehme [0020] The term “selection expression” as used herein refers to an expression that is created using an operator and/or negation operator as described above. The selection expression may form a so-called relational expression or a condition. The selection expression (or predicate) may consist of: a data item or attribute, an operator or negation operator, and a value. A positive (negative) predicate or selection expression may comprise an operator (negation operator) [52-58] further elaborate on the matter) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take all prior methods and make the addition of Boehme in order to create a more efficient system via negations operators in databases systems ( Boehme [0001] The present invention relates generally to the field of databases, and more particularly to a system and method for processing a query comprising a negation operator. [0002] Analytical database systems manage very large amounts of data and are optimized for queries that must read large portions of it. Additionally, analytical database systems offer the complete querying power of SQL. As such systems do not focus on OLTP load (i.e., involving point queries) they typically do not index each data row, but heavily rely on scan performance. Nevertheless, to speed up scan performance, analytical database systems often store information on blocks of data.[52-58] further elaborate on the matter)
Corresponding product claim 15 is rejected similarly as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN D TOUGHIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/ARYAN D TOUGHIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165