DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 4/15/2026.
Claims 8, 20, and 27 are cancelled.
Claims 28-30 are new.
Claims 1-7, 9, 17-19, 21-26, and 28-30 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21-24, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561).
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Shamgunov et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0198232).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Ramineni et al. (US Patent 9,361,350).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Bedrax-Weiss et al. (US Patent 8,719,265).
Claim 28 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21-24, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) (Oliver) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561).
In regards to claim 1, Oliver discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at a server and from a client device, a data request (Oliver at paras. 0047, 0052)1;
obtaining, by the server and from a search database, a first set of records corresponding to the data request (Oliver at para. 0052)2 wherein the search database comprises an index of a record database (Oliver at para. 0048)3, and wherein the search database is in a stale state relative to the record database (Oliver at para. 0051)4;
obtaining, by the server, from the record database, alternative records in response to the request (Oliver at para. 0052)5;
merging the alternative records with the first set of records to form a result set of records (Oliver at para. 0052-53)6; and
providing at least a subset of the result set of records to the client device, for display at the client device, the subset of the result set of records including at least one record from the alternative records. Oliver at para. 0053.
Oliver does not expressly disclose the server also receives a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device and executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers.
Jain discloses a system and method for maintaining a data records system. Users of the system can add records to the system via a user interface. In response, the system sends the user a unique identifier that identifies the added record, wherein the identifier also includes a timestamp. Jain at paras. 0039-40. The user can subsequently send a request to the system (i.e., data request) that includes the unique identifier to retrieve the data record (i.e., and a list of identifiers corresponding to records added by the client device). The system retrieves the data record corresponding to the received identifier from the database (i.e., executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers to obtain alternative records … ). Jain at paras. 0044-46.
Oliver and Jain are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of data record storage and management in a database.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver by adding the features of the server also receives a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device and executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers, as disclosed by Jain.
The motivation for doing so would have been because unique identifiers uniquely identifies a data record and can also include other information, such as timestamp information, and can be used for later retrieval of the exact record. Jain at paras. 0039-40.
Oliver in view of Jain does not expressly disclose merging the records is performed by replacing stale records in the first set of records with the alternative records obtained based on their timestamps.
Rauber discloses a system and method for managing media content lists stored on different devices on a network. The method includes reconciling different versions of the media content lists that concurrently exist in the network. Rauber at para. 0014. The method includes comparing at least two lists of content entries in a process to create a unified list (i.e., merged result). The comparison prioritizes entries with a later timestamp, which means entries with older timestamps are replaced by entries with later timestamps when they correspond to the same content. Rauber at paras. Figs. 3-5; paras. 0071-73. As can be seen in Figs. 3-5 of Rauber, for example, content entry corresponding to “B” in the first list has a timestamp of 2pm and a timestamp of 3pm in the second list. As a result, the unified list only keeps the content entry correspond to “B” that has a timestamp of 3pm.
Oliver, Jain, and Rauber are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of data record storage and management.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver in view of Jain by adding the features of merging the records is performed by replacing stale records in the first set of records with the alternative records obtained based on their timestamps, as disclosed by Rauber.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with lists (i.e., merged result) that meets user expectations for what they would see based on changes they have made to lists across their devices. Rauber at para. 0036.
In regards to claim 2, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the search database is updated asynchronously as the index of the record database after the record database is updated. Oliver at para. 0048.
In regards to claim 3, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, wherein merging the alternative records with the first set of records causes one or more records of the alternative records to be interspersed among the records of the first set of records according to a sort criteria. Rauber at para. 7
In regards to claim 4, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the data request includes a filter criteria, wherein the one or more records of the alternative records are interspersed among the records of the first set of records according to the filter criteria. Oliver at para. 0053.8
In regards to claim 5, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data request includes a filter criteria, wherein merging the alternative records with the first set of records includes removing, from the first set of records, a record corresponding to a first identifier of the list of identifiers which is absent from the alternative records due to not meeting the filter criteria. Oliver at paras. 0052-53.9
In regards to claim 7, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request from the client device to add or modify a record (Oliver at para. 0049; Jain at paras. 0039-40); and
returning to the client device, an identifier and a timestamp corresponding to the record which is added or modified, wherein the identifier is included in the list of identifiers received at the server. Jain at paras. 0039-40.10
In regards to claim 17, Oliver discloses a device comprising:
a hardware processor (Oliver at para. 0034); and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon (Oliver at para. 0034), which when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, at a server and from a client device, a data request (Oliver at paras. 0047, 0052)11;
obtain, by the server and from a search database, a first set of records corresponding to the data request (Oliver at para. 0052)12 wherein the search database comprises an index of a record database (Oliver at para. 0048)13, and wherein the search database is in a stale state relative to the record database (Oliver at para. 0051)14;
obtaining, by the server, from the record database, alternative records in response to the request (Oliver at para. 0052)15;
merging the alternative records with the first set of records to form a result set of records (Oliver at para. 0052-53)16; and
provide at least a subset of the result set of records to the client device, for display at the client device, the subset of the result set of records including at least one record from the alternative records. Oliver at para. 0053.
Oliver does not expressly disclose the server also receives a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device and executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers.
Jain discloses a system and method for maintaining a data records system. Users of the system can add records to the system via a user interface. In response, the system sends the user a unique identifier that identifies the added record, wherein the identifier also includes a timestamp. Jain at paras. 0039-40. The user can subsequently send a request to the system (i.e., data request) that includes the unique identifier to retrieve the data record (i.e., and a list of identifiers corresponding to records added by the client device). The system retrieves the data record corresponding to the received identifier from the database (i.e., executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers to obtain alternative records … ). Jain at paras. 0044-46.
Oliver and Jain are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of data record storage and management in a database.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver by adding the features of the server also receives a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device and executing point reads from the record database based on the list of identifiers, as disclosed by Jain.
The motivation for doing so would have been because unique identifiers uniquely identifies a data record and can also include other information, such as timestamp information, and can be used for later retrieval of the exact record. Jain at paras. 0039-40.
Oliver in view of Jain does not expressly disclose merging the records is performed by replacing stale records in the first set of records with the alternative records obtained based on their timestamps.
Rauber discloses a system and method for managing media content lists stored on different devices on a network. The method includes reconciling different versions of the media content lists that concurrently exist in the network. Rauber at para. 0014. The method includes comparing at least two lists of content entries in a process to create a unified list (i.e., merged result). The comparison prioritizes entries with a later timestamp, which means entries with older timestamps are replaced by entries with later timestamps when they correspond to the same content. Rauber at paras. Figs. 3-5; paras. 0071-73. As can be seen in Figs. 3-5 of Rauber, for example, content entry corresponding to “B” in the first list has a timestamp of 2pm and a timestamp of 3pm in the second list. As a result, the unified list only keeps the content entry correspond to “B” that has a timestamp of 3pm.
Oliver, Jain, and Rauber are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of data record storage and management.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver in view of Jain by adding the features of merging the records is performed by replacing stale records in the first set of records with the alternative records obtained based on their timestamps, as disclosed by Rauber.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with lists (i.e., merged result) that meets user expectations for what they would see based on changes they have made to lists across their devices. Rauber at para. 0036.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as the combination of claims 2 and 4 in the form of a device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as claim 7 in the form of a device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 26 are essentially the same as claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, respectively, in the form of a computer readable medium (Oliver at para. 0034). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 23 is essentially the same as the combination of claims 3 and 4 in the form of a computer readable medium. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 30, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: when a point-read for an identifier returns no record, removing a corresponding record for the identifier from the result set of records. Oliver at paras. 0052-53. Rauber at paras. 0077, 0112-13.17
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) (Oliver) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Shamgunov et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0198232) (Shamgunov).
In regards to claim 6, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the record database includes a first record database and a second record database, further comprising:
associating a first subset of the list of identifiers with the first record database, wherein the first subset of the list of identifiers are used for querying the first record database in a first batch query; and
associating a second subset of the list of identifiers with the second record database, wherein the second subset of the list of identifiers are used for querying the second record database in a second batch query.
Shamgunov discloses a system and method for query routing in a distributed database system (i.e., record database includes first record database and second record database). Shamgunov at Fig. 7A. The system provides servicing a query which includes a list of identifiers. The query is split into multiple queries, where each query corresponds to a subset of the desired identifiers. For example, records for identifiers from 5000-9999 are retrieved at a first data server (i.e., querying the first record database) and records for identifiers 10000-14999 are retrieved at a second data server. Once retrieved, the results from each of the separate queries are joined to an overall result. Shamgunov at paras. 0081-82.
Oliver, Jain, Rauber, and Shamgunov are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database querying.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber by adding the features of wherein the record database includes a first record database and a second record database, associating a subset of the list of identifiers with the first record database, wherein the first subset of the list of identifiers are used for querying the first record database in a first batch query, and associating a second subset of the list of identifiers with the second record database, wherein the second subset of the list of identifiers are used for querying the second record database in a second batch query, as disclosed by Shamgunov.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate load balancing or provide particular quality of service for particular types of queries. Shamgunov at para. 0074.
Claim 25 is essentially the same as claim 6 in the form of a computer readable medium. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) (Oliver) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Ramineni et al. (US Patent 9,361,350) (Ramineni)
In regards to claim 9, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: when a record from the first set of records and a corresponding record in the alternative records has a same timestamp, providing an indication to the client device that the corresponding record is updated in the search database.
Ramineni discloses a system and method for data transfer between two database. The method includes access both databases and finding matching records. The method further includes determining which record is more current by comparing respective timestamps. The method further sends a notification to the user to communicate that a record is current. Ramineni at col. 10, lines 12-21.
Oliver, Jain, Rauber, and Ramineni are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database querying.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber by adding the features of when a record from the first set of records and a corresponding record in the alternative records has a same timestamp, providing an indication to the client device that the corresponding record is updated in the search database, as disclosed by Ramineni.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow updating and synchronization of records while relieving the user of having to manually compare records. Ramineni at col. 10, lines 54-62.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0246411) (Oliver) in view of Jain (US Patent Pub 2014/0379763), further in view of Rauber (US Patent Pub 2010/0082561), further in view of Bedrax-Weiss et al. (US Patent 8,719,265) (Bedrax-Weiss).
In regards to claim 29, Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: providing, by the server, with the result set, additional records beyond a current page break to enable local application of changes without re-requesting data.
Bedrax-Weiss discloses a system and method for prefetching information in anticipation of a user request. The method includes a user performing a search and the system retrieving search results in response. In anticipation of the user’s request for additional pages of result results, additional search results are requested from the server and sent to the user and stored or cached at the user device (i.e., providing … additional records beyond a current page break). Bedrax-Weiss at col. 2, lines 60-67; col. 3, lines 1-19. Once stored in the cache of the client, subsequent requests for additional results can be responded to by retrieving and display results from the cache of the client (i.e., enable local application of changes without re-requesting data). Bedrax-Weiss at col. 6, lines 60-67; col. 7, lines 1-2.
Oliver, Jain, Rauber, and Bedrax-Weiss are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database querying.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oliver in view of Jain and Rauber by adding the features of providing, by the server, with the result set, additional records beyond a current page break to enable local application of changes without re-requesting data, as disclosed by Bedrax-Weiss.
The motivation for doing so would have been to expedite the retrieval process and improve the user experience. Bedrax-Weiss at col. 7, lines 1-2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings to address the reference characters in Fig. 3 is acknowledged. Consequently, objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 6, 8, 9, 20, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Claims 8, 20, and 27 are cancelled rendering their rejections moot.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 6, 9, and 25 is acknowledged. The rejection to claims 6, 9, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-27 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 8, 20, and 27 are cancelled rendering their rejections moot.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 17-19 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter have been fully considered. The amendments address the issues raised in the rejection with regards to interpretation of the system and the computer readable medium of the claims. Consequently, the rejection of claims 17-19 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1-7, 9, 17-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments add specific limitations that sufficiently demonstrate an asserted improvement to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1-7, 9, 17-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and they are persuasive in that the cited prior art does not disclose “replacing stale records in the first set of records with the alternative records based on their timestamps. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are set forth above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The new grounds of rejection rely on Rauber, which discloses a system and method for retrieving sets of data records from two different sources and reconciling the data records based on the timestamps of individual entries.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with regards to Oliver and Jain, Applicant alleges that neither reference discloses (1) “sends a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device” and (2) “point-reads from the record database based on each of the list of identifiers to obtain alternative records.” Remarks at 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to limitation (1), Applicant seems to have a narrow interpretation of the limitation than what is required. As Applicant notes, Jain discloses using a record identifier to retrieve a record. Jain at paras. 0044-46. However, Applicant does not explain how providing a unique identifier (i.e., list of identifiers) to retrieve a record (i.e., a data request) is different from the recited limitation. The limitation merely requires that a “list of identifiers” is provided with a data request. Jain discloses providing a unique identifier in a request for a record, which meets the limitation.
In regards to limitation (2), Applicant does not explain how “point-reads” is different from what is disclosed by Jain. The specification does not seem to describe a meaning for “point-reads” that is different from its meaning in the art. In particular, “point-reads” is interpreted to mean the process of retrieving a record by providing its unique identifier. In other words, the record is retrieved exactly by using its unique identifier without having to perform a keyword or value type search. As Applicant notes, Jain discloses retrieving a record by providing its unique identifier. In other words, Jain discloses performing point-reads to obtain a record associated with the provided unique identifier (i.e., list of identifiers …).
For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts Oliver in view of Jain discloses limitations (1) and (2). As discussed above, new grounds of rejection are set forth as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. However, Oliver and Jain are still relied upon to reject the aforementioned limitations for the reasons explained.
Rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 20, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 8, 20, and 27 are cancelled rendering their rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 6, 9, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 refer to the arguments presented in regards to the independent claims, which are addressed above. Consequently, claims 6, 9, and 25 are now rejected under the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Abrams (US Patent Pub 2009/0037488) discloses a system and method for database consolidation where database records are merged and duplicates are replaced so a single record survives.
Wittke (US Patent Pub 2018/0307760) discloses a system and method for presenting search results from multiple sources, ranking them, and not presenting duplicate results from lower ranked sources.
Human (US Patent Pub 2017/0344549) discloses a system and method for enhanced database query processing that performs a union operation on two queries.
Gramann, III et al. (US Patent Pub 2001/0049613) discloses a system and method for synchronizing systems and automatically resolving conflicts to avoid information loss.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Server receives a query from the client.
2 Server checks the search index (i.e., search database) for matching results (i.e., a first set of data records corresponding to the data request).
3 The search index is an index of the database.
4 The search index is asynchronously updated, which means that at high load, the index update process can run behind and search results may not reflect actual changes to the database (i.e., the search database is in a stale state relative to the record database).
5 Server also checks the most recently used cache on the database (i.e., records database) to obtain any records that are there, which correspond to records that the user has recently added or modified.
6 The results from the search index (i.e., first set of records) and results from the MRU in the database (i.e., alternative records) are mixed together.
7 The entries are merged and sorted by timestamp (i.e., interspersed … according to a sort criteria).
8 The query terms/identifiers are interpreted as the “filter criteria” and the results from both the search index and the database are mixed according to what matches the query terms (i.e., according to the filter criteria).
9 The query terms/identifiers are interpreted as “filter criteria”. The results are merged together and modifications of records reflected in the MRU are reflected in the results. This includes modifications like deletion, which would result in a record from the search index (i.e., first set of records) being removed.
10 The client is given a unique identifier, which includes a timestamp.
11 Server receives a query from the client.
12 Server checks the search index (i.e., search database) for matching results (i.e., a first set of data records corresponding to the data request).
13 The search index is an index of the database.
14 The search index is asynchronously updated, which means that at high load, the index update process can run behind and search results may not reflect actual changes to the database (i.e., the search database is in a stale state relative to the record database).
15 Server also checks the most recently used cache on the database (i.e., records database) to obtain any records that are there, which correspond to records that the user has recently added or modified.
16 The results from the search index (i.e., first set of records) and results from the MRU in the database (i.e., alternative records) are mixed together.
17 When the results are merged together and modifications of records reflected in the MRU are reflected in the results. This includes modifications like deletion, which would result in a record being retrieved (i.e., point-read) to return no record. Such record would be removed from the result set. Rauber also discloses this feature when forming the unified list to reflect deletions of entries in the unified list (i.e., merged result).
