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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12th 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed on December 12th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 18 and 20 have been amended, claims 1 - 20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §101
4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 8 -11, filed November 2, 2018, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the assertion in the Office Action that the claimed operations can be, “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” does not withstand scrutiny when the amended claim language is properly considered. Applicant then explains that, (1) “the job compiler 220 … parses the query to identify constituent parts of the query.” A human cannot mentally parse SQL queries in real-time during compilation within a multi-node distributed database system (2) “attaching the file to the column or table establishes the join constraint.” This is not a mental process and it requires programmatic access to the database metadata structure maintained by the system. (3) “Join constraint enforcement can be dynamically enforced at query compilation time” which “enhances security and reduces susceptibility to attack vectors like SQL injection.” (4) Automatic validation at query compilation time occurs as an integrated step within the query compilation workflow. This timing-specific automated validation within compilation architecture cannot be performed mentally.
Examiner respectfully agrees in part and disagrees in part. The substantive issue is whether an act can be performed mentally and or performed using a generic computer that does not result in an improvement in the performance of the computer an improvement in technology. In regards to the argument (1) a human can mentally evaluate a written query to dissect the constituent parts of a query. A simple query e.g. SELECT a, b, c FROM table_A, table_B where table_A.a = table_B.b can be evaluated to sectionalize the various clauses in an inner join in the query and therefore can be done mentally. (2) a human using a pen and paper can write a query with an insert statement where the INSERT_INTO clause inserts a “file” or “object” into a given column or field using a generic computer (3) a generic computer running a DBMS can compile data in a data gathering step which may not amount to an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement to technology. (4) validation scripts can be written using an electronic format and saved into a generic computer running a DBMS that has checks or validation steps integrated into a process flow that merely gathers data. This may not necessarily lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement in technology.
The aforementioned amendments do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore the statutory rejection will be maintained.
35 U.S.C. §103
5. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 11 -14, filed December 12th 2025, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully
considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant argues that the constraint policy taught in the Bijon reference “US20230401260” is one that focuses on visibility of data output and not on join keys determining join operations and or are permissible for use in join operations.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Second, applicant argues that the Bijon reference does not teach any validation logic that checks whether proposed join key columns comply with restrictions on their use as join keys.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
6. 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 1 – 20 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.
The claims are analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites “A computer system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and one or more computer storage media containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: …” and as such falls withing one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “assessing the first query to identify that the one or more functions comprises at least a join function, the join function being a join function; determining that the first query is configured to join a first set of data from the shared dataset with a second set of data using the join function; determining that a join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query based on determining that the join constraint policy is attached to at least a portion of the first set of data of the shared dataset, the join constraint policy restricting use of data values stored in the portion of the first set of data; the determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced comprises at least validating that each column designated as a join key in the join operation complies with column-level restrictions defined by the join constraint policy;” and “identifying columns designated as join keys in the join function, evaluating whether the identified columns are permitted as join keys based on the column- level restrictions, and determining compliance based on the evaluation. “These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Thus evaluating a query and observing its functions include a join function, and observing that the join is to a shared dataset that restricts the data to a defined constraint policy and an evaluation of the constraint policy involving a validation of join keys is an observation and an evaluation that can be performed in the mind and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea. This endeavor can be performed mentally.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional recitation of, “receiving a first query directed towards a shared dataset in a data clean room, the first query comprising one or more functions;” “parsing the first query during query compilation by a query compiler of the computer system to identify constituent parts of the first query;” “accessing metadata associated with the first set of data to identify whether a join constraint policy is attached to columns of the first set of data, the metadata including a file attached to one or more columns that defines the join constraint policy;” and generating an output to the first query based on the execution of the one or more functions, the output to the first query without data values stored in the portion of the first set of data based on determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query” are mere data gathering steps. Thus receiving a first query and generating an output from it when considered individually and when considered in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality by adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and therefore they are not integrated into a practical solution.
Step 2B
Thus receiving a first query and generating an output recited with a high level of generality on a computer system comprising at least one hardware processor; and one or more computer storage media containing instructions are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “applying the join constraint policy to a table, the table comprising the first set of data, wherein applying the join constraint policy to the table causes the join constraint policy to be enforced in response to any query that is executed against the table, wherein determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced comprises determining that the first query is to be executed on the table.” Observing the attributes of a table and applying a restriction to it is an observation and judgement that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and a paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements, “causes the join constraint policy to be enforced in response to any query that is executed against the table, wherein determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced comprises determining that the first query is to be executed on the table” are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “attach the join constraint policy onto the shared dataset such that query functions executed on the shared dataset require the assessment of the join constraint policy to determine whether the join constraint policy is to be enforced.” Attaching a restriction to a dataset and assessing such restriction is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements, “providing a native application to a customer computing device, the native application configured to create the data clean room,” are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry in an area of technology, which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. They are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. The courts have held adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “receiving allow join keys from a customer computing device, and applying the allow join keys to the join constraints, the execution of the first query comprising checking whether the first data set is included in the allow join keys.” Verifying the presence of keys or identifiers in a dataset can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper and receiving keys from a computer is a mere form of data gathering. This is recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. Thus the additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical solution.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 4 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “the allow join keys enable the customer computing device to control the execution of queries on individual columns within the first set of data.” The observation of the functionality of the keys is an evaluation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites,” receiving deny join keys from a customer computing device, and applying the deny join keys to the join constraints, the execution of the first query comprising checking whether the first data set is not included in the deny join keys.” Evaluating a query to determine its constituent steps is an observation that can be performed in the mind. Receiving data from a computer is mere data gathering.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites,” wherein the output to the first query comprises an indication of an error or failure to execute the query based on the join constraint policy being enforced on the first set of data.” A determination of an output is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the output to the first query is based on an execution of the join function on data in the first set of data that does not have the join constraint policy being enforced.” A determination of an output is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein receiving the first query comprises receiving a query template with editable fields filled by a customer computing device, the operations further comprising converting the query template into query syntax, assessing the first query comprising assessing the query syntax.” Observing the configuration of a query template, converting a query into a query syntax and assessing the query syntax are mental processes that can be performed also using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the first query comprises a request for a particular view, the view requiring the execution of the join function to generate a dataset for the particular view, the assessing of the first query comprising identifying that the first query comprises the request for the particular view, further assessing the request for the particular view to determine that the particular view requires the execution of the join function.” Assessing a query requirement and a particular view are observations that can be performed in the mind. A request for a view is mere data gathering steps. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality by adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and therefore they are not integrated into a practical solution.
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 10 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the assessing of the first query and the generating of the output to the first query is performed on a computing device that generated the first query.” Assessing a query is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper and the generation of an output on a computer is a mere data gathering step and recited at a high level of generality.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 10 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the assessing of the first query and the generating of the output to the first query is performed on a computing device that shared the shared dataset into the data clean room.” Assessing a query is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper and the generation of an output on a computer is a mere data gathering step recited at a high level of generality.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the operations further comprise receiving a second query that comprises another join function configured to join the output of the first query with a third set of data; and enforcing a membership constraint policy on the other join function based on the join constraint policy being included in the output of the first query.” Evaluating the components of a second query and the utilization of restriction policies in a query are observations that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the operations further comprise adding the join constraint policy to the output of the first query; receiving a second query that is another join function configured to join the output of the first query with a third set of data; and enforcing the join constraint policy on the other join function based on the join constraint policy being included in the output of the first query.” Determining a join function is configured to a query is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. Receiving a second query a constraint enforced to an output is a mere data gathering step.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the operations further comprise, prior to generating the output to the first query, determining whether another constraint type other than the join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query, and generating the output based on the determination on whether the other constraint type is to be enforced.” Determination of a constraint in a query is an observation that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. The generation of an output is a mere data gathering step.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 15 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the other constraint type is an aggregation constraint, a membership constraint, or a differential private policy constraint.” Observing a constraint type is a mental process that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, ”wherein the first query is a mix of a plurality of different types of joins, the operations further comprise determining whether the join constraint policy applies to each join operation of the plurality of different types of joins.” Observing the configuration of a query mix and whether a policy applies to the different join types is a mental process that can be performed in the mind or using a pen and paper.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 18 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “a method performed by at least one hardware processor.” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of, “a method performed by at least one hardware processor.” That is, other than reciting, “a method performed by at least one hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 depends from independent claim 18 and corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Independent claim 20 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “One or more machine-storage media containing instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a computer system.” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of, “One or more machine-storage media containing instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a computer system.” That is, other than reciting, “One or more machine-storage media containing instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a computer system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
7. 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.
8. 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claim 1 – 6, 8, 13 – 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthals et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0126751 ), hereinafter Guthals, in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2
Regarding claim 1 Guthals teaches a computer system (Fig. 1, multi-tenant data management system [0025]) comprising: at least one hardware processor; (processor [0079]) and one or more computer storage media (storage media [0079]) containing instructions that, (set of instructions [0107]) when executed by (executed by [0093]) the at least one hardware processor, (processor [0079])cause the computer system (Fig. 1, multi-tenant data management system [0025]) to perform operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” comprising: receiving a first query (Fig. 2A, (202A) obtaining a first query [0080]) directed towards a shared dataset (Fig. 1, (152) shared data space [0048], [0061] – [0063], [0073] and [0074]) in a data clean room, (data cleanroom [0061]) the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) comprising one or more functions; (query function [0049]) assessing (based on [0068]) such as “assessing” the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) to identify (to identify [0033]) that the one or more functions (query function [0049]) comprises at least a join function, the join function being a join function; (based on the query ( e.g., query function generated by the query generator 126), the data management system 160 correlates the data corpora 122 using a identifier, such as a common value, or common join key, hashed email (HEM) address, user ID, or any other common key or join that can be matched, or a non-personally identifying identifier [0068]) determining that (determining [0081]) the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) is configured to (configured to [0080]) join a first set of data (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056] from the shared dataset (Fig. 1, (152) shared data space [0048], [0061] – [0063], [0073] and [0074]) with a second set of data (Fig. 1, (122B) data corpus 2 [0036]) using the join function; ( e.g., query function generated by the query generator 126), the data management system 160 correlates the data corpora 122 using a identifier, such as a common value, or common join key, hashed email (HEM) address, user ID, or any other common key or join [0068]) determining that (determining [0081]) a join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” is to be enforced (enforce [0074]) in relation to the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) based on (based on [0049]) determining that (determining [0081]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” is attached to (applied to [0073]) such as “attached to” at least a portion (subset of the data corpus 2 122B [0049]) of the first set of data (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056] of the shared dataset, (Fig. 1, (152) shared data space [0048], [0061] – [0063], [0073] and [0074]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” restricting use (restricted access [0061]) of data values (personally identifiable information [0061]) stored (stored [0043]) in the portion(subset of the data corpus 2 122B [0049]) of the first set of data; (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056]
Guthals does not fully disclose parsing the first query during query compilation by a query compiler of the computer system to identify constituent parts of the first query; accessing metadata associated with the first set of data to identify whether a join constraint policy is attached to columns of the first set of data, the metadata including a file attached to one or more columns that defines the join constraint policy; determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query based on determining that the join constraint policy is attached to at least a portion of the first set of data of the shared dataset, the join constraint policy restricting use of data values stored in the portion of the first set of data, the determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced comprises at least automatically validating at query compilation time that each column designated as a join key in a join operation complies with column-level restrictions defined by the join constraint policy, the validating comprising: identifying columns designated as join keys in the join function, evaluating whether the identified columns are permitted as join keys based on the column- level restrictions, and determining compliance based on the evaluation;
Bijon-2 teaches parsing (parses [0064]) the first query (the query [0072]) such as “first query” SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 17, (1702) a query directed toward a shared dataset [0213] during query compilation by a query compiler (the compiler analyzes a query parse tree to ensure that the rules are followed (e.g., the path in the tree from aggregation constrained data access to the root of the tree contains at least one aggregation operation (e.g., GROUP-BY operation).) SEE EXAMPLES of compilers in [0051],[0064], [0065] of the computer system (Fig. 28 computer system [0033], [0300]) to identify constituent parts (The constraint system 240 determines the columns associated with the data accessed by the constraint system 240 in response to a query. This can include columns and/or sub-columns from which the data was accessed. [0072]) of the first query; (the query [0072]) such as “first query” SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 17, (1702) a query directed toward a shared dataset [0213] accessing metadata associated with the first set of data (The configuration and metadata manager 222 uses metadata to determine which data files need to be accessed to retrieve data for processing a particular task or job. [0066], (metadata specifying prohibited rows or cell values [0246]) to identify whether a join constraint policy is attached to columns of the first set of data, (Fig. 17, (1706) determine whether an aggregation constraint is attached to table(s) [0213]) the metadata (metadata [0066], [0246]) including a file attached to one or more columns (the constraint system 240 generates a file that is attached to the identified columns. [0071]) that defines the join constraint policy; (aggregation constraint policy [0221]) such as “join constraint policy” determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query (ABS., enforces the aggregation constraint policy on the first query based on a context of the first query) (Fig. 17, (1710) enforce aggregation constraint in relation to query [0213]). based on determining that the join constraint policy is attached to at least a portion of the first set of data (Fig. 17, (1706) determine whether an aggregation constraint is attached to table(s) [0213]) of the shared dataset, (ABS., shared dataset) (Fig. 17, (1702) shared dataset [0213])the join constraint policy restricting use of data values stored in the portion of the first set of data, (the aggregation constraint policy restricting output of data values stored in the first table [0221]) SEE FIG. 12 (1231) NOT ALLOWED query the BP of persons born in 1961 AND diagnosed with Bell’s palsy in 1975 the determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced(ABS., enforces the aggregation constraint policy on the first query based on a context of the first query) (Fig. 17, (1710) enforce aggregation constraint in relation to query [0213]) comprises at least automatically (trigger [0102], [0104], [0106], [0184]) validating (call and execute the VALIDATE_QUERY procedure [0248] - [0251]) at query compilation time (at compile time [0187]) that each column designated as a join key in a join operation complies with column-level restrictions (force a specific join order, perform uniqueness checks on join keys prior to applying any filters, and/or guide users to ensure that join keys are unique regardless of join order [0173]) defined by the join constraint policy, (aggregation constraint policy [0221]) such as “join constraint policy” the validating (call and execute the VALIDATE_QUERY procedure [0248] - [0251]) comprising: identifying columns designated as join keys in the join function, evaluating whether the identified columns are permitted as join keys based on the column- level restrictions, and determining compliance based on the evaluation; (In additional examples, join-key uniqueness on both sides of every JOIN operation is required ( e.g., column a is unique of foo, column c is unique over bar, column d is unique over bar, etc.) After all operations (e.g., joins/filters) are completed, the system checks whether any rows from a constrained table are still unique. If not, then the system has caught a join operation that amplifies the constrained table and emits a user error instead of output. [0214])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guthals to incorporate the teachings of Bijon-2 whereby parsing the first query during query compilation by a query compiler of the computer system to identify constituent parts of the first query; accessing metadata associated with the first set of data to identify whether a join constraint policy is attached to columns of the first set of data, the metadata including a file attached to one or more columns that defines the join constraint policy; determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced in relation to the first query based on determining that the join constraint policy is attached to at least a portion of the first set of data of the shared dataset, the join constraint policy restricting use of data values stored in the portion of the first set of data, the determining that the join constraint policy is to be enforced comprises at least automatically validating at query compilation time that each column designated as a join key in a join operation complies with column-level restrictions defined by the join constraint policy, the validating comprising: identifying columns designated as join keys in the join function, evaluating whether the identified columns are permitted as join keys based on the column- level restrictions, and determining compliance based on the evaluation. By doing so aggregation constraints, such as aggregation constraint policies, can comprise ( or refer to) a policy, rule, guideline, or combination thereof or, rule for
limiting, for example, the ways that data can be aggregated or restricting to only aggregate data in specific ways according to a data provider's determinations (e.g., policies). Bijon-2 [0039]
Claims 18 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 2 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise applying (enforce [0074]) such as “applying” the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” to a table, (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1, (122B) data corpus 2 [0036]) such as “table” the table (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1, (122B) data corpus 2 [0036]) such as “table” comprising the first set of data, (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056] wherein applying (enforce [0074]) such as “applying” the join constraint policy(data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” to the table (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1, (122B) data corpus 2 [0036]) such as “table” causes (cause p0112]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” to be enforced (enforce [0074]) in response to any query (list of queries [0044]) that is executed against (executed [0049]) the table, (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1, (122B) data corpus 2 [0036]) such as “table” wherein determining that (determining [0081]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” is to be enforced(enforce [0074]) comprises determining that (determining [0081]) the first query is to be executed on (executed on [0073])the table (first query on data corpus 1 122A [0099])
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 3 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise providing a native application (entity resolution and anonymization service [0061]) such as “native application” to a customer computing device, (computing device [0079]) the native application (entity resolution and anonymization service [0061]) such as “native application” configured to(configured [0061]) create (create [0061]) the data clean room, (“cleanroom” [0061]) and attach (protect personally identifiable information with restricted access [0061]) such as “attach” the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” onto the shared dataset (shared data space 152 [0061]) such that query functions (query function [0049])executed on (executed on [0073]) the shared dataset (shared data space 152 [0061])require the assessment of (determination that [0053]) such as “assessment” the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” to determine whether (determines whether [0044]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” is to be enforced (enforce [0074])
Regarding claim 4 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise receiving (receiving [0115]) allow join keys (common join key, or any other common key [0068]) such as “allow join key” from a customer computing device, (Fig. 4, computing device [0030]) such as a personal computer (PC), a laptop, a server, a mobile phone, a smart
phone, a tablet computer, a netbook computer, an e-reader, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or a cellular phone etc [0038] and applying the allow join keys (common join key, or any other common key [0068]) such as “allow join key” to the join constraints, (legal restrictions [0034]; regulatory restrictions [0035]) such as “join constraints” the execution of (during the execution thereof by [0111]) the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) comprising checking (verify compliance [0059]) whether the (whether the [0068]) first data set (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) is included (included [0046]) in the allow join keys (common join key, or any other common key [0068]) such as “allow join keys”
Regarding claim 5 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 4,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the allow join keys (common join key, or any other common key [0068]) such as “allow join keys” enable the customer computing device (Fig. 4, computing device [0030]) such as a personal computer (PC), a laptop, a server, a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet computer, a netbook computer, an e-reader, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or a cellular phone etc [0038] to control (to control [0043]) the execution (execution thereof [0111]) of queries (queries [0058]) on individual columns (user names, user ids, emails, hashed emails, addresses, billing information, user preferences, user settings, user search histories, user viewing histories, user ratings, etc. For example, the data corpus 1 122A may include a listing of each video streamed by each user together with a time when each video was streamed, a location where each video was streamed, a number of times each video was streamed, any ratings submitted by a user associated with any videos streamed by the user, searches performed by the user, internet-based activities made by the user, electronic activities made by the user, purchases made by the user, language settings of the user including subtitles, captions, language tracks, and other data of the user [0040]) such as “individual columns” within the first set of data (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056]
Regarding claim 6 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise receiving deny join keys (data from a provider that has non-permitted purpose for correlation with another provider’s data [0044]) such as “deny join keys” from a customer computing device, (Fig. 4, computing device [0030]) such as a personal computer (PC), a laptop, a server, a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet computer, a netbook computer, an e-reader, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or a cellular phone etc [0038] and applying (enforce [0074]) such as “applying” the deny join keys (data from a provider that has non-permitted purpose for correlation with another provider’s data [0044]) such as “deny join keys” to the join constraints, (legal restrictions [0034]; regulatory restrictions [0035]) such as “join constraints” the execution of (execution thereof [0111]) the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) comprising checking whether the (whether the group of data is in [0068]) first data set (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) is not included in the deny join keys (data from a provider that has non-permitted purpose for correlation with another provider’s data [0044]) such as “deny join keys”
Regarding claim 8 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the output (search results [0045]) such as “output” to the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) is based on (based on [0049]) an execution of(execution thereof [0111]) the join function ( e.g., query function generated by the query generator 126), the data management system 160 correlates the data corpora 122 using a identifier, such as a common value, or common join key, hashed email (HEM) address, user ID, or any other common key or join [0068]) on data (own data [0081]) in the first set of data (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056] that does not have the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” being enforced (in a default setting, the first query ( e.g., query function) generated by the query generator 1 126A has access to own data (the data corpus 1 122A of the data provider 1 120A in this example). Therefore, the query generator 1 126A does not need check with own rules ( data rules 1 124A in this example) when the default setting ( e.g., default rules in the data rules 1 124A) is implemented [0081])
Regarding claim 13 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise receiving (receiving [0061]) a second query (second query [0085]) that comprises another join function (by executing the query ( e.g., query function) on the data corpora 122 ( e.g., some or all of the data corpus 1122A and the data corpus 2 122B) from both of the data providers 120 [0062]) configured to (configured to [0080]) join the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) of the first query (first query [0079]) with a third set of data; (own data [0034] – [0036], [0046], [0058], [0062], [0073], [0077], [0081] and [0088]) and enforcing (enforce [0074]) a membership constraint policy (minimum bin aggregation rule [0045]) such as “membership constraint policy” on the other join function (by executing the query ( e.g., query function) on the data corpora 122 ( e.g., some or all of the data corpus 1122A and the data corpus 2 122B) from both of the data providers 120 [0062]) based on(based on [0068]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” being included in(enforce [0074]) the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) of the first query. (first query [0079])
Regarding claim 14 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise adding the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” to the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) of the first query; (first query [0079]) receiving (receiving [0061]) a second query (second query [0085]) that comprises another join function (by executing the query ( e.g., query function) on the data corpora 122 ( e.g., some or all of the data corpus 1122A and the data corpus 2 122B) from both of the data providers 120 [0062]) configured to (configured to [0080])join the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) of the first query (first query [0079]) with a third set of data; (own data [0034] – [0036], [0046], [0058], [0062], [0073], [0077], [0081] and [0088]) and enforcing (enforce [0074]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” on the other join function (by executing the query ( e.g., query function) on the data corpora 122 ( e.g., some or all of the data corpus 1122A and the data corpus 2 122B) from both of the data providers 120 [0062]) based on(based on [0068]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” being included in (enforce [0074])the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062])of the first query (first query [0079])
Regarding claim 15 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the operations (perform any one or more of the methodologies [0107]) such as “operations” further comprise, prior to (the privacy requirements may include a requirement for a minimum number of user data to be disclosed in response to a search query [0045]) generating (generating [0049]) the output (desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) to the first query, (first query [0079]) determining whether (determine whether [0084]) another constraint type (privacy requirements [0045]) other than the join constraint policy(data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” is to be enforced (enforce [0074])in relation to the first query, (first query [0079]) and generating(generating [0049]) the output(desire data [0036], [0037], [0055] – [0058], [0062]) based on (based on [0068])the determination on whether (included privacy requirements [0045])the other constraint type ((privacy requirements [0045]) is to be enforced. (enforce [0074])
Regarding claim 16 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 15,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the other constraint type (privacy requirements [0045]) an aggregation constraint, (minimum bin aggregation rule [0045]) a membership constraint, or a differential private policy constraint
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthals et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0126751 ), hereinafter Guthals, in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2 and in further view of Biere et al. (United States Patent Number 8214382 ), hereinafter referred to as Biere.
Regarding claim 7 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the output (search results [0045]) such as “output” to the first query(ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) based on (based on [0049]) the join constraint policy (data policy [0063], [0066] comprising data rules 1 and data rules 2 [0044] – [0049], [0051], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0081], [0088]) such as “join constraint policy” being enforced on(enforce [0074]) the first set of data (Fig. 1, (122A) data corpus 1 [0036]) such as customer data [0056]
Guthals does not fully disclose comprises an indication of an error or failure to execute the query
Biere teaches comprises an indication of an error or failure to execute the query (Fig. 4 (412) Reject the query when not in compliance with the constraints applying to data tables included in the query and constraints applying to the classification of the user Col 10 ln 58 – 62) see also Figs. 2 (212), 3 (312)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guthals in view of Bijon-2 to incorporate the teachings of Biere whereby an indication of an error or failure to execute the query. By doing so the particular client device 170 or user may be prohibited due to constraints on the client device 170 from executing the query as constructed and the query will not be executed. Biere Col 10 ln 65 – 67 and Col 11 ln 1 – 3.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthals et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0126751 ), hereinafter Guthals, in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2 and in further view of Agee et al., (United States Patent Number 11947905) hereinafter Agee
Regarding claim 9 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein receiving the first query(Fig. 2A, (202A) obtaining a first query [0080])
Guthals does not fully disclose comprises receiving a query template with editable fields filled by a customer computing device, the operations further comprising converting the query template into query syntax, assessing the first query comprising assessing the query syntax.
Agee teaches comprises receiving a query template (script templates Col 2 ln 20 – 22) with editable fields (In operation 508, template builder 300 receives, through interface 200, a selection of data object 401 (a first test data object) from among objects 113 in metadata repository 110. In operation 510, template builder 300 receives, through interface 200, a selection of template component 411 (a first selected template component) from among the template components in template component library 106.
Multiple template components may be selected. Template components simplify the insertion of text into candidate script template 420 for user 102,Col 6 ln 57 - 67) filled by a customer computing device, (User 102 uses interface 200 to perform a list of tasks 310, which include: (1 ) Select data object; (2) Enter template text; (3) Drag/drop template components; Col 5 ln 59 - 61) the operations (exemplary operations Col 6 ln 34) further comprising converting the query template into query syntax, (Each of these testing scenarios requires a specific template to be created with special syntax for the specific environment in which it is executed Col 3 ln 1 - 3) assessing the first query (the executable program comprises an SQL query Col 7 ln 62) comprising assessing the query syntax (special syntax for the specific environment in which it is executed Col 3 ln 1 - 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guthals in view of Bijon-2 to incorporate the teachings of Agee wherein receiving the first query comprises receiving a query template with editable fields filled by a customer computing device, the operations further comprising converting the query template into query syntax, assessing the first query comprising assessing the query syntax. By doing so this approach permits for example, a set of thousands of processing tasks to be changed with a few selections of metadata values by a template execution tool. This requires
mere seconds, rather than hours or days for a user to test or otherwise process voluminous data sets. Agee Col 3 ln 50 - 55.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthals et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0126751 ), hereinafter Guthals, in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2 and in further view of Cheng et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20180232418) hereinafter Cheng
Regarding claim 10 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the first query(Fig. 2A, (202A) a first query [0080])
Guthals does not fully disclose comprises a request for a particular view, the view requiring the execution of the join function to generate a dataset for the particular view, the assessing of the first query comprising identifying that the first query comprises the request for the particular view, further assessing the request for the particular view to determine that the particular view requires the execution of the join function.
Cheng teaches comprises a request for a particular view, (generate a temporary table [0040]) the view (Fig. 2 the temporary table [0040]) SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 3 requiring the execution of the join function (Fig. 2, (210) grouping of at least two tables [0040]) see “inner join” [0041] – [0042] to generate a dataset (Fig. 2, (240) data set [0042]) SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 3 for the particular view, (Fig. 2 the temporary table [0040]) the assessing (processing [0077]) such as “assessing” of the first query (select function [0042]) such as “first query” comprising identifying that the first query (select function [0042]) such as “first query comprises the request for(executes a select function [0042]) the particular view, (Fig. 2 the temporary table [0040]) SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 3 further assessing (processing [0077]) such as “assessing” the request for (executes a select function [0042]) the particular view (Fig. 2 the temporary table [0040]) SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 3 to determine that the particular view(Fig. 2 the temporary table [0040]) SEE EXAMPLE Fig. 3 requires the execution of (execution of [0046]) the join function (Fig. 2, (210) grouping of at least two tables [0040]) see “inner join”[0041] – [0042]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guthals in view of Bijon-2 to incorporate the teachings of Cheng wherein comprises a request for a particular view, the view requiring the execution of the join function to generate a dataset for the particular view, the assessing of the first query comprising identifying that the first query comprises the request for the particular view, further assessing the request for the particular view to determine that the particular view requires the execution of the join function. By doing so there is the gained efficiency of utilizing aspects of embodiments of the present invention to pull a result set equivalent to that pulled in a left out join, in a relational database. Cheng [0043]
Regarding claim 11 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 and Cheng teaches the computer system of claim 10,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the assessing (determining [0081]) such as “assessing” of the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) and the generating (generating [0030]) of the output (search results [0045]) such as “output” to the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) is performed on (performed by [0079]) a computing device (computing device [0030], [0079]) that generated (that generate [0039]0 the first query (ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106])
Regarding claim 12 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 and Cheng teaches the computer system of claim 10,
Guthals as modified further teaches wherein the assessing (determining [0081]) such as “assessing” of the first query (determining [0081]) such as “assessing” and the generating(determining [0081]) such as “assessing” of the output (search results [0045]) such as “output” to the first query(ABS., first query) (first query [0026], [0028], [0079] - [0085], [0093] – [0100], [0102] and [0106]) is performed on (performed by [0079]) a computing device (computing device [0030], [0079]) that shared (desired to share their respective data corpora 122 [0061]) the shared dataset (shared data space 152 [0073]) into the data clean room (data cleanroom [0061])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthals et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0126751 ), hereinafter Guthals, in view of Bijon et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20240303373) hereinafter Bijon-2 and in further view of Cho et al. (United States Patent Number 12,210,526) hereinafter Cho
Regarding claim 17 Guthals in view of Bijon-2 teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Guthals does not fully disclose wherein the first query comprises a mix of a plurality of different types of joins, the operations further comprise determining whether the join constraint policy applies to each join operation of the plurality of different types of joins.
Cho teaches wherein the first query (request for database operations Col 6 ln 21) such as “first query” comprises a mix of a plurality of different types of joins, (diverse join operations Col 3 ln 1) (certain types of join operations, such as an inner join Col 10 ln 45 – 55; UNION ALL Col 11 ln 10; anti-join Col 11 ln 17; left join Col 11 ln 19 – 24; full join (or full outer join) Col 11 ln 26 ) the operations (operations Col 3 ln 1) further comprise determining whether (determining whether Col 4 ln 2) the join constraint policy (constraints on a join Col 4 ln 59) such as “join constraint policy” SEE application of a “hyperedge” Col 14 ln 23 – 27 applies to each join operation (A hyper-edge places a constraint on a join, where the hyper-edge is represented by a set of values that includes a set of one or more constraints and an edge (as described above, a summary
of a particular join operation).Col 14 ln 22 - 28) of the plurality of different types of joins. (diverse join operations Col 3 ln 1) (certain types of join operations, such as an inner join Col 10 ln 45 – 55; UNION ALL Col 11 ln 10; anti-join Col 11 ln 17; left join Col 11 ln 19 – 24; full join (or full outer join) Col 11 ln 26 )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guthals in view of Bijon-2 to incorporate the teachings of Cho wherein the first query is a mix of a plurality of different types of joins, the operations further comprise determining whether the join constraint policy applies to each join operation of the plurality of different types of joins. By doing so the ability to define constraints also can save resources during query optimization, as well as potentially improving the quality of identified plans, since
query optimizer resources can be concentrated on a more limited search space. Cho Col 5 ln 29 – 33
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Ngo et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20250005194) teaches “For example, the owner of a particular dataset may specify that a certain column of data
within the dataset may never leave its own network. Also in certain embodiments, privacy-enhancing technologies may be inserted into the query plan developed by the federated query engine to enable privacy-preserving table joins. [0006]”
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469) 295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-
8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have
questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166