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 response to the restriction mailed requirement 10/20/2025 for Application No. 18/749,598 filed 6/20/2024.
Claims 10-16 are cancelled.
Claims 21-27 are new.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are pending.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21-24, and 26 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).
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 Shamgunov et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0198232).
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 27 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 Ramineni et al. (US Patent 9,361,350).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “302” has been used to designate a variety of components in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the list of identifiers associated with the first record database” and “the list of identifiers associated with the second record database.” There is lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the corresponding record from the second set of records” in the second limitation. It is unclear which “corresponding record” is being referenced because the comparing step can identify more than one “corresponding record” in the second set of records. Clarification is required.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claims 20 and 27 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a device, which would conventionally be categorized under machines or manufacture. An invention categorized under machine or manufacture requires physical/hardware components. Here, claims 17-20 recite a “processor” and a “computer readable medium”. In regards to the processor, the specification at para. 0027 states “… one or more of the host processor … may be implemented in software.” In regards to the medium, the specification at para. 0070 states that “… tangible computer readable storage medium also can be non-transitory in nature.” In light of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “processor” encompasses software only embodiments and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “computer readable medium” encompasses transitory media, such as signals. Therefore, the claimed device of claims 17-20 recites a device that comprises only software components and cannot be categorized under the statutory categories of machine or manufacture.
Claims 21-27 are directed to a “computer readable medium” storing instructions. As noted above, para. 0070 of the specification describes the medium as encompassing both transitory and non-transitory media. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter of transitory media or signals.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) receiving, at a server and from a client device, a data request and a list of identifiers corresponding to records added or modified by the client device, (2) obtaining, by the server and from a search database, a first set of records corresponding to the data request, (3) obtaining, by the server and from a record database, a second set of records corresponding to a record request for each of the list of identifiers, wherein the search database comprises an index of the record database, (4) merging the first set of records and the second set of records to form a result set of records, the merging based at least in part on the data request, and (5) 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 second set of records.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitation (1) is directed to a step of IESA in the form of data gathering, where the data includes the data request and a list of identifiers from the client device. Limitation (2) is also directed to a step of data gathering of obtaining a first set of records. It also includes a mental step of determination as it needs to be determined which records correspond to the data request. This type of determination is recited at a high level and the broadest reasonable interpretation includes generic acts of observation, evaluation, and judgment. Limitation (3) similarly is directed to a step of IESA and mental step of determination. Limitation (4) is directed to a mental step of merging, which is recited at a high level and a person is practically capable of merging two sets of records together based in part on a data request. Lastly, limitation (5) is directed to a step of IESA in the form of data output.
The recited server, client device, search database, and record database, is/are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic components performing generic computer functions. None of the components are recited in a manner that provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
As discussed above, limitations (1) through (3) and (5) are directed to steps of IESA. In regards to the mental steps recited as part of limitations (2) and (3), they are recited at a high level and do not contain any specific steps that would provide meaningful limits to the abstract idea or in a manner that would adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. In regards to limitation (4), as discussed above, the limitation does not recite particular steps of how the merging is performed that would adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. These limitations provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the claim recites no details about how the particular steps are performed to adequately demonstrate an improvement. The claim omits any details as to how a technical problem is solved and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While claim 1 recite additional components in the form of “server,” “client device,” “search database,” and “record database”, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For much of the reasons discussed above, the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations, at best are mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (1) through (3) and (5) are directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 2
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the search database is updated asynchronously as an index of the record database after the record database is updated. The limitation merely describes the periodic updating of the search database, which is conventional in the art. Spec at para. 0002. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 2 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein merging the first set of records and the second set of records causes one or more records in the second set of records to be interspersed among the records of the first set of records. The limitation is directed to a mental step of merging so the records are interspersed. However, limitation (2) does not recite specifics of how the merging is performed in a manner that adequately demonstrates the asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 4
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 4 depends on claim 3 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 4 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the data request includes a filter criteria and (2) wherein the one or more records in the second set of records are interspersed among the records of the first set of records according to the filter criteria. Limitation (1) is directed to IESA in the form of specifying the type of data that is input/gathered. Limitation (2) is directed to the mental step of merging records to make them interspersed according to filter criteria However, limitation (2) does not recite specifics of how the merging is performed with respect to the filter criteria in a manner that adequately demonstrates the asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 4 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 5
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 5 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the data request includes a filter criteria, (2) wherein merging the first set of records and the second 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 second set of records due to not meeting the filter criteria. Limitation (1) is directed to IESA in the form of specifying the type of data that is gathered/input. Limitation (2) is directed to the mental step of merging from claim 1 to add the step of removing records that do not meet a criteria. However, limitation (2) does not recite specific steps that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 6
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 6 recites the additional limitations of wherein the record database includes a first record database and a second record database, further comprising (1) associating a subset of the list of identifiers associated with the first record database for querying the first record database in a first batch query and (2) associating a second subset of the list of identifiers associated with the second record database for querying the second record database in a second batch query. Limitation (1) is directed to a mental step of associating identifiers to a first record database for querying (note querying is not actually performed). Similarly, limitation (2) is directed to a mental step of associating identifiers to a second record database. Neither of the limitations recite specifics or limitations as to how the association is performed that would adequately demonstrate some asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 7 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 7 recites the additional limitations of (1) receiving a request from the client device to add or modify a record and (2) 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. Limitation (1) is directed to IESA in the form of data gathering/input. Limitation (2) is also directed to a IESA in the form of data output/transmission. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 8
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 8 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 8 recites the additional limitations of (1) comparing, from the second set of records, each record in the second set of records having a corresponding record in the first set of records with the corresponding record from the first set of records and (2) selecting to include in the result set of records the corresponding record from the second set of records when a timestamp from the corresponding record in the second set of records is more recent than a timestamp from the corresponding record in the first set of records. Limitation (1) is directed to a mental step of comparison, which includes steps of evaluation and judgment. Limitation (2) is also directed to a mental step of selection and determination, which includes steps of evaluation and judgment. Both limitations merely recite abstract ideas categorized under mental processes. Neither limitation recites sufficient specificity to adequately demonstrate any asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 8 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 9
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 9 depends on claim 8 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 9 recites the additional limitations of (1) when the corresponding record from each of the first set of records and the second set of records has the same timestamp, providing an indication to the client device that the corresponding record is updated in the search database. The limitation is directed to a mental step of determination and a step of IESA in the form of data output/transmission. The determination includes observation, evaluation, and judgment as to whether a corresponding record from the two sets of records has the same timestamp and the IESA is directed to data output/transmission to provide the indication to a client device. Neither of these limitations recite sufficient specificity to adequately demonstrate the asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons explained above in regards to step 2A-2, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 9 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 17-20 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, the combination of 2 and 4, 7, and 8, respectively, in the form of a device. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 17-20 additionally recite the components of a “processor” and a “computer-readable medium”. However, they are also recited at a high level of generality and do not put meaningful limits on the abstract idea to integrate it or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 21-27 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 2, the combination of 3 and 4, 5-7, and the combination of 8 and 9, respectively, in the form of computer-readable medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 21-27 additionally recite the components of a “computer readable medium” and “one or more processors”. However, they are also recited at a high level of generality and do not put meaningful limits on the abstract idea to integrate it or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
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, and 26 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).
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;
obtaining, by the server and from a record database, a second set of records corresponding to a record request (Oliver at para. 0052)3, wherein the search database comprises an index of the record database (Oliver at para. 0048);
merging the first set of records and the second set of records to form a result set of records, the merging based at least in part on the data request (Oliver at para. 0053)4; 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 second set of 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 obtaining the second set of records corresponds to a record request for each of 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., obtaining a second set of records corresponding to a record request for each of the list of identifiers). 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 obtaining the second set of records corresponds to a record request for each of 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.
In regards to claim 2, Oliver in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the search database is updated asynchronously as an 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 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein merging the first set of records and the second set of records causes one or more records in the second set of records to be interspersed among the records of the first set of records. Oliver at para. 0053.5
In regards to claim 4, Oliver in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the data request includes a filter criteria, wherein the one or more records in the second set of records are interspersed among the records of the first set of records according to the filter criteria. Oliver at para. 0053.6
In regards to claim 5, Oliver in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data request includes a filter criteria, wherein merging the first set of records and the second 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 second set of records due to not meeting the filter criteria. Oliver at paras. 0052-53.7
In regards to claim 7, Oliver in view of Jain 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. 0039-40.8
In regards to claim 17, Oliver discloses a device comprising:
a processor (Oliver at para. 0034); and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon (Oliver at para. 0034), which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, at a server and from a client device, a data request (Oliver at paras. 0047, 0052)9;
obtain, by the server and from a search database, a first set of records corresponding to the data request (Oliver at para. 0052)10;
obtain, by the server and from a record database, a second set of records corresponding to a records request (Oliver at para. 0052)11, wherein the search database comprises an index of the record database (Oliver at para. 0048);
merge the first set of records and the second set of records to form a result set of records, the merging based at least in part on the data request (Oliver at para. 0053)12; 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 second set of 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 obtaining the second set of records corresponds to a record request for each of 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., obtaining a second set of records corresponding to a record request for each of the list of identifiers). 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 obtaining the second set of records corresponds to a record request for each of 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.
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.
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 Shamgunov et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0198232) (Shamgunov).
In regards to claim 6, Oliver in view of Jain 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 subset of the list of identifiers associated with the first record database for querying the first record database in a first batch query; and
associating a second subset of the list of identifiers associated with the second record database 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, 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 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 associated with the first record database for querying the first record database in a first batch query, and associating a second subset of the list of identifiers associated with the second record database 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.
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 27 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 Ramineni et al. (US Patent 9,361,350) (Ramineni)
In regards to claim 8, Oliver in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
comparing, from the second set of records, each record in the second set of records having a corresponding record in the first set of records with the corresponding record from the first set of records; and
selecting to include in the result set of records the corresponding record from the second set of records when a timestamp from the corresponding record in the second set of records is more recent than a timestamp from the corresponding record in the first set of records.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jain discloses record identifiers that include timestamps and Oliver also discloses records are assigned a timestamp field. Oliver at para. 0049. Oliver in view of Jain also discloses merging results from different databases in response to a data request. What is not disclosed is comparing timestamps of corresponding records to determine which is more recent.
Ramineni discloses a system and method of data transfer between two databases. The method includes accessing both databases and finding matching records (i.e., corresponding records). The method further includes determining which record is more current by comparing their respective timestamps. A notification is also sent to the user to communicate that the a record is current (i.e., indication that the corresponding record is updated). Ramineni at col. 10, lines 12-21.
Oliver, Jain, and Ramineni are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database interaction and 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 by adding the features of comparing, from the second set of records, each record in the second set of records having a corresponding record in the first set of records with the corresponding record from the first set of records and selecting to include in the result set of records the corresponding record from the second set of records when a timestamp from the corresponding record in the second set of records is more recent than a timestamp from the corresponding record in the first set of records, as disclosed by Ramineni.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow updating and synchronization of records between the two databases while relieving the user of time expenditures of performing the record comparisons manually. Ramineni at col. 10, lines 54-62.
In regards to claim 9, Oliver in view of Jain and Ramineni discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: when the corresponding record from each of the first set of records and the second set of records has the same timestamp, providing an indication to the client device that the corresponding record is updated in the search database. Ramineni at col. 10, lines 12-21.13
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 8 in the form of a device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 27 is essentially the same as the combination of claims 8 and 9 in the form of a computer readable medium. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Bodnar et al. (US Patent 6,295,541) discloses a system and method for synchronizing between two or more datasets.
Kepler et al. (US Patent Pub 2001/0049676) discloses a system and method for retrieving data from multiple data sources.
Bouchard et al. (US Patent 6,334,124) discloses a system and method for improving search indexes in a client server environment.
Lunt et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0004789) discloses a system and method for sharing information with existing user databases.
Conclusion
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 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.
4 The results from the search index and the most recently used cache (i.e., first set of records and second set of records) are mixed (i.e., merged) and returned to the user.
5 The results are “mixed” which is interpreted as “interspersed”.
6 The query terms 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).
7 The query terms 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 being removed.
8 The client is given a unique identifier, which includes a timestamp.
9 Server receives a query from the client.
10 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).
11 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.
12 The results from the search index and the most recently used cache (i.e., first set of records and second set of records) are mixed (i.e., merged) and returned to the user.
13 A notification (i.e., indication) is provided to the user to show the record is updated.