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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7-9 are listed as amended, however there are no amendments present in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah 10114846 herein Shah.
Per claim 1, Shah discloses: receiving a query directed to a metadata catalog comprising a plurality of entries comprising corresponding metadata identifying data stored on a storage system; (Col. 3 lines 47; Queries to the database table that include predicates directed to the sort order column may be efficiently processed, as mapping information or other metadata describing the ranges of data) selecting, from the metadata catalog, a subset of the plurality of entries responsive to the query; and providing a subset of the data stored on the storage system identified by corresponding metadata included the subset of the plurality of entris (Col. 3 lines 47; .. mapping information or other metadata describing the ranges of data (according to the values in the sort order column) stored within particular storage locations can be used to identify which storage locations to read in order to service a query).
Per claim 2, Shah discloses: wherein the storage system comprises a plurality of storage arrays and the metadata catalog describes data across the plurality of storage arrays (fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 47; mapping information or other metadata describing the ranges of data (according to the values in the sort order column) stored within particular storage locations).
Per claim 3, Shah discloses: wherein providing the of the data comprises: providing the metadata included in the subset of the entries in response to the query; and receiving a request for the subset of the data (col. 10 lines 27-32; When processing queries, data access module 460 may examine the entries of for the ranges of multi-column sort order values in the super block for each data block storing data for the database table to identify data blocks to be read in order to service the query, and then read the identified data blocks storing data for the column).
Per claim 4, Shah discloses: further comprising adding, based on a descriptor of structured data stored in the storage system, an entry in the metadata catalog corresponding to the structured data (
col. 10 lines 1-16; each entry of the superblock data structure includes a unique ID for a respective block, and that unique ID may be used to perform various operations associated with data block... the unique ID may be generated (and a corresponding entry in the superblock created) by the leader node or by a computing node when the data block is first written in the data warehouse system. In at least some embodiments, an entry in the superblock may be maintained that indicates the range, such as the min and max values, for multi-column sort order values associated with the data values for entries stored in the superblock; the examiner notes that descriptor is merely identifiers).
Per claim 5, Shah discloses: wherein the entry is added in response to the structured data being stored into the storage system (col. 10 lines 1-16; the unique ID may be generated (and a corresponding entry in the superblock created) by the leader node or by a computing node when the data block is first written in the data warehouse system. In at least some embodiments, an entry in the superblock may be maintained that indicates the range, such as the min and max values, for multi-column sort order values associated with the data values for entries stored in the superblock; the examiner notes that descriptor is merely identifiers).
Per claim 6, Shah discloses: further comprising adding an entry in the metadata catalog corresponding to a portion of data and based on application metadata for the portion of data (col. 10 lines 1-16; the unique ID may be generated (and a corresponding entry in the superblock created) by the leader node or by a computing node when the data block is first written in the data warehouse system. In at least some embodiments, an entry in the superblock may be maintained that indicates the range, such as the min and max values, for multi-column sort order values associated with the data values for entries stored in the superblock; the examiner notes that descriptor is merely identifiers).
Per claim 7, Shah discloses: further comprising adding an entry in the metadata catalog corresponding to a portion of data and based on user-provided metadata for the portion of data (col. 10 lines 1-16; the unique ID may be generated (and a corresponding entry in the superblock created) by the leader node or by a computing node when the data block is first written in the data warehouse system. k; the examiner notes that the user provided metadata is interpreted as metadata generated by the host/originator query).
Per claim 8, Shah discloses: further comprising performing access control to the storage system based on the metadata catalog (col. 1 lines 1-6; Multi-column sort order value ranges, such as might be stored in block metadata 526 may be evaluated to determine whether a particular data block stores data for entries associated with the predicate sort order values. If the range does not include then predicate sort order values, then data block need not be accessed. Thus, in some embodiments, sort order values may be used to identify data blocks to be ready when servicing the query.; the examiner interprets the access control as selective access/reading).
Claims 11-18 are the system claim corresponding to the method claims 1-8 and are rejected under the same reasons set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1-8.
Claim 20 is the CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah 10114846 herein Shah in view of Rielau et al. 20210342322 herein Reilau.
Per claim 9, Shah does not specifically disclose: further comprising adding, to the metadata catalog, one or more entries in the metadata catalog corresponding to a file, wherein the one or more entries correspond to a plurality of versions of the file.
However, Reilau discloses: further comprising adding, to the metadata catalog, one or more entries in the metadata catalog corresponding to a file, wherein the one or more entries correspond to a plurality of versions of the file (¶0032 DBMS 130 accesses system catalog 140 based on query 102 to determine database objects stored in database 150 that is accessible to the application version specified in the query.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Shah and Reilau because Reilau avoids deduplication. Reilau improves data storage efficienct (¶0025).
Per claim 10, Reilau discloses: wherein the file is queryable in an application versioning dimension and a storage versioning dimension (¶0032 DBMS 130 accesses system catalog 140 based on query 102 to determine database objects stored in database 150 that is accessible to the application version specified in the query).
Claim 19 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 9 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues: The Office Action cites Shah at col. 3 line 47 as disclosing these elements. Applicant disagrees. Shah generally relates to a system for storing a balanced distribution of sort order values for a multi-column sort order of a relational database. Shah at Abstract. The cited portions of Shah describe processing "queries directed to the database table that include predicates directed to the sort order column" using "mapping metadata describing the ranges of data...stored within particular storage locations...to identify which storage locations to read in order to service a query." In other words, the cited portions of Shah describe using metadata for a sort order column of a table to identify what data to read in order to service a query directed to that table.
In the interests of expedited prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to recite that the received query is "directed to the metadata catalog" and that "entries [of the metadata catalog] responsive to the query" are selected. In the claimed embodiments, the metadata that identifies data in the storage system is selected by processing a query directed to a metadata catalog that stores that metadata. In contrast, Shah discloses receiving a query directed to a table and accessing metadata for that table to process the query. The query in Shah is not "directed to" a metadata catalog storing entries of metadata as claimed but is instead directed to a table that is associated with other metadata.
The metadata in Shah is not "responsive to [a] query" as claimed and is instead accessed by virtue of it being associated with a table to which a query is directed. Shah does not disclose selecting subsets of entries storing metadata that are responsive to a query. Accessing metadata for a table to which a query is directed as disclosed in Shah does not disclose accessing metadata included in entries of the table/catalog itself to which the query is directed. One skilled in the art would appreciate the difference between accessing metadata included entries of a table/catalog as claimed and accessing metadata for a table that is not itself stored in the entries of that table.
Furthermore, the metadata in Shah is used to service the query to the database table as the metadata "can be used to identify which storage locations to read in order to service a query." In Shah, accessing and using the metadata to read stored data are intermediate steps in servicing the query. In contrast, in the claimed embodiments, accessing metadata (e.g., as stored in the metadata catalog entries) is the result of servicing the query to the metadata catalog. Providing data stored in the storage system identified by this metadata as claimed is not part of processing the claimed query as providing that data relies on the query already having been processed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Shah does disclose "receiving a query directed to a metadata catalog comprising a plurality of entries each comprising metadata identifying data stored on a storage system; selecting, from the metadata catalog, a subset of the entries responsive to the query.” The examiner notes that the claimed subject matter merely requires a catalog of metadata. A catalog is analogous to a table as a data structure. Further, metadata is merely information about data. Given the requirements set forth, Shah discloses queries the database table which is akin to a catalog. Further, the table includes mapping information or other metadata describing the ranges of the data. Clearly the metadata is stored as entires in the database table to which the query is directed. See the rejection to claim 3 supra. Therefore, Shah discloses: receiving a query directed to a metadata catalog comprising a plurality of entries each comprising metadata identifying data stored on a storage system; selecting, from the metadata catalog, a subset of the entries responsive to the query.
Remark
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABOUCARR FAAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim VO can be reached at 5712723642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BABOUCARR . FAAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
/BABOUCARR FAAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138