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 .
The amendments were received on 8/19/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending where claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Claim Objections
The applicant amended the claims to address the claim objections. In view of the amendments the respective claim objections have been withdrawn..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 9-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating at least one query path based at least in part on the path expression, the at least one query path including a namespace indicator (recites mental process steps of evaluation and parsing, similar to identifying particular elements in a string of text);
generating a query path identifier, based, at least in part, on the at least one query path (recites mental process steps including potential mathematical calculations to do conversions such as a simple hash function to convert/encode the text into another value);
based, at least in part, on looking up the query path identifier in an index store, determining that the query path identifier is a section-path identifier for a partial hierarchical path (recites mental process steps of comparison of patterns and making a determination/judgement);
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
storing a plurality of documents in a plurality of rows in one or more tables of a database management system (DBMS) (see recites field of use/technological environment limitations describing the particular computer system that is being used to store information which includes tables with rows and columns, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
wherein each document of the plurality of documents includes one or more sections of nodes arranged in a hierarchy, having a root node and one or more leaf nodes (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format that is being used which includes semi-structured data such as XML data, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving a first query, the first query specifying a path expression for the plurality of documents (recites insignificant extrasolution activities of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
and retrieving, from a particular document of the plurality of documents, a particular root node corresponding to the section-path identifier in the index store and having the same namespace indicator; retrieving at least one result node by evaluating nodes hierarchically belonging to the particular root node according to the first query (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements recite particular data and computerized environment to implement the judicial exception as well as receiving results/information.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
storing a plurality of documents in a plurality of rows in one or more tables of a database management system (DBMS) (see recites field of use/technological environment limitations describing the particular computer system that is being used to store information which includes tables with rows and columns, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
wherein each document of the plurality of documents includes one or more sections of nodes arranged in a hierarchy, having a root node and one or more leaf nodes (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format that is being used which includes semi-structured data such as XML data, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving a first query, the first query specifying a path expression for the plurality of documents (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and retrieving, from a particular document of the plurality of documents, a particular root node corresponding to the section-path identifier in the index store and having the same namespace indicator; retrieving at least one result node by evaluating nodes hierarchically belonging to the particular root node according to the first query (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recite particular data and computerized environment to implement the judicial exception as well as receiving results/information.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites receiving a second query, the second query specifying a full hierarchical path for the plurality of documents (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
generating a full-path hash, based, at least in part, on the full hierarchical path (recites mental process step of performing an evaluation and calculation based on received input);
retrieving a node value, based, at least in part, on a lookup of the full-path hash into the index store (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites based, at least in part, on looking up the section-path identifier in the index store, obtaining at least one document identifier of at least one document of the plurality of documents; based, at least in part, on doc-to-row mapping store, obtaining one or more row identifiers corresponding to the at least one document identifier, the one or more row identifiers identifying one or more result rows in the DBMS in which the at least one result node is stored (recites mental process steps of evaluating/scanning and making a determination based on comparisons);
retrieving the at least one result node, based at least in part the one or more row identifiers (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites receiving a request to update the particular document and thereby generate a new updated document; without re-indexing the plurality of documents to generate a new index store, deactivating mapping of the particular document in doc-to-row mapping store that maps the plurality of documents to the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS (recites limitations that, when viewed as a whole appear to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Claims 5 and 6 depend upon claim 4 and are not directed towards an abstract idea for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites limitations that, when viewed as a whole, recite details regarding various operations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 7 and are not directed towards an abstract idea for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying a first section root node of a first section of nodes of the one or more sections of nodes, wherein the first section root node is associated with a first section path; identifying one or more first leaf nodes of the first section root node, corresponding to one or more first leaf paths (recites mental process steps of evaluating data and performing comparisons);
indexing, into the index store, the first section path to the first section root node and the one or more first leaf paths to corresponding one or more leaf node values (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites generating a first section hash value for the first section of nodes by generating a hash value of the first section path (recites mental process steps of performing a calculation based on input);
storing the first section hash value in the index store in association with a row identifier corresponding to a row at which the first section root node is stored in the DBMS (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
generating one or more first leaf hash values corresponding to the one or more first leaf paths of the one or more first leaf nodes (recites mental process steps of performing a calculation based on input);
storing each of the one or more first leaf hash values in the index store in association with each respective node value of the one or more first leaf nodes (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying a second section root node of a second section of nodes of the one or more sections of nodes, wherein the second section root node is associated with a second section path; based at least in part on index configuration data, determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths; based, at least in part, on determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, exclude the second section root node and hierarchy of the second section root node from indexing (recites mental process steps of evaluating data for a particular pattern and making a decision/judgement based on whether something should be discarded/ignored).
With regard to claim 12, this claim recites scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying one or more second leaf nodes of the second section root node, corresponding to one or more second leaf paths; based at least in part on the index configuration data, determining whether the second section each of the one or more second leaf paths a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, c) or has a node value of excluded data type; based, at least in part, on determining whether the second section each of the one or more second leaf paths a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, c) or has a node value of excluded data type, exclude the said each of the one or more second leaf paths from indexing (recites mental process steps of evaluating data for a particular pattern and making a decision/judgement based on whether something should be discarded/ignored).
With regard to claims 13-20, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11 respectively and the same analysis above applies to the respective claims 13-20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al [US 11,481,439] in view of Krishnamurthy [US 2005/0055334 A1] and Yang et al [US 2012/0246334 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Liu teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: storing a plurality of documents in a plurality of rows in one or more tables of a database management system (DBMS) (see col 6, lines 62-63; the system can store documents in tables of a database system);
wherein each document of the plurality of documents includes one or more sections of nodes arranged in a hierarchy, having a root node and one or more leaf nodes (see col 1, line 49 through col 2, line 4; the system can utilize XML documents that have sections/sub-trees of nodes in a hierarchy);
receiving a first query, the first query specifying a path expression for the plurality of documents (see col 3, lines 47-51 and col 6, lines 11-24; the system can receive queries to search for information associated with XML documents);
generating at least one query path based at least in part on the path expression, the at least one query path including a namespace indicator (see col 13, lines 22-26; see col 8, lines 38-49; the query path can include a namespace);
Liu does not appear to explicitly teach:
generating a query path identifier, based, at least in part, on the at least one query path;
based, at least in part, on looking up the query path identifier in an index store, determining that the query path identifier is a section-path identifier for a partial hierarchical path and retrieving, from a particular document of the plurality of documents, a particular root node corresponding to the section-path identifier in the index store and having the same namespace indicator;
retrieving at least one result node by evaluating nodes hierarchically belonging to the particular root node according to the first query.
Krishnamurthy teaches generating a query path identifier, based, at least in part, on the at least one query path (see paragraphs [0058] and [0060]; the system can generate a query path identifier/signature based on the query path).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu by utilizing path signatures as taught by Krishnamurthy in order to allow the system to be able to utilize paths or contexts for documents as part of the query so that the system can focus searches on particular information without having the user having to manually filter out results that, although matching particular keywords/tokens are not relevant to the particular context that the user desires thus reducing the search space for a quicker and more efficient search as well as providing a more concise result set with more relevant results.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy teach based, at least in part, on looking up the query path identifier in an index store, determining that the query path identifier is a section-path identifier for a partial hierarchical path and retrieving, from a particular document of the plurality of documents, a particular root node corresponding to the section-path identifier in the index store (see Krishnamurthy, paragraphs [0016] and [0051] and [0065]-[0068]; see Liu, col 13, lines 43-49; the system can determine that the query is for various sub-paths from a particular root node of a sub-tree and be able to utilize a hash signature to find that sub-tree);
retrieving at least one result node by evaluating nodes hierarchically belonging to the particular root node according to the first query (see Krishnamurthy, paragraph [0067]-[0068]; see Liu, col 14, lines 28-32; the system can generate a result listing based on the user’s query and respective path information of the query).
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy teach querying and retrieval as well as namespaces (see Liu, col 8, lines 33-35) but do not appear to explicitly teach retrieving, from a particular document of the plurality of documents, a particular root node corresponding to the section-path identifier in the index store and having the same namespace indicator.
Yang teaches retrieving, from a particular document…, having the same namespace indicator (see paragraphs [0040] and [0041]; the system can utilize namespace as part of the query to indicate or constrain what is being searched).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy by utilizing namespaces in the XPATH query as means to assist the searching process as taught by Yang in order to allow users of the system to be able to define where they want the search to occur and have the system be able to utilize less resources including reducing unnecessary network transmissions by having the query/request specify the namespace to be searched and then perform the search for that designated namespace instead of all available namespaces thereby allowing the system to process and complete the query and be able to respond to the user’s query quicker while reducing various computer resources by not performing unnecessary search/comparison operations for unwanted namespace searches.
With regard to claim 2, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach receiving a second query, the second query specifying a full hierarchical path for the plurality of documents; generating a full-path hash, based, at least in part, on the full hierarchical path; retrieving a node value, based, at least in part, on a lookup of the full-path hash into the index store (see Liu, col 3, lines 47-51 and col 6, lines 11-24; see Krishnamurthy, paragraphs [0062] and [0016]; the system can receive queries to search for information associated with XML documents including particular queries can be for an entire/full path and be able to generate a full-path hash to retrieve a node’s value).
With regard to claim 9, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying a first section root node of a first section of nodes of the one or more sections of nodes, wherein the first section root node is associated with a first section path; identifying one or more first leaf nodes of the first section root node, corresponding to one or more first leaf paths; indexing, into the index store, the first section path to the first section root node and the one or more first leaf paths to corresponding one or more leaf node values (see Krishnamurthy, Figures 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0046] and [0058]-[0060]; see Liu, col 3, lines 25-47; the system can scan the respective stored XML documents to determine a respective path/section and be able to create hash path signatures of the respective node and respective leaf nodes thereof).
With regard to claim 10, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach generating a first section hash value for the first section of nodes by generating a hash value of the first section path; storing the first section hash value in the index store in association with a row identifier corresponding to a row at which the first section root node is stored in the DBMS; generating one or more first leaf hash values corresponding to the one or more first leaf paths of the one or more first leaf nodes; storing each of the one or more first leaf hash values in the index store in association with each respective node value of the one or more first leaf nodes (see Krishnamurthy, Figures 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0046] and [0058]-[0060]; the system can store hash values based on the respective paths for everything associated with the XML document including section nodes and respective leaf/element nodes).
With regard to claims 13, 14, and 19, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1, 2, and 9 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 3-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al [US 11,481,439] in view of Krishnamurthy [US 2005/0055334 A1] and Yang et al [US 2012/0246334 A1] in further view of Geissinger [US 2018/0137144 A1].
With regard to claim 3, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach based, at least in part, on looking up the section-path identifier in the index store, obtaining at least one
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang do not appear to explicitly teach based, at least in part, on looking up the section-path identifier in the index store, obtaining at least one document identifier of at least one document of the plurality of documents;
based, at least in part, on doc-to-row mapping store, obtaining one or more row identifiers corresponding to the at least one document identifier.
Geissinger teaches obtaining at least one document identifier of at least one document of the plurality of documents (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and [0059]; and Figure 6; the system can utilize a document identifier to determine the respective row for the corresponding document).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang by being able to be able to index a particular document as taught by Geissinger in order to allow the system to be able to allow the system to be able to version the underlying data and have an intermediate data structure that allows for the system to transparently point to the newest version of documents while still retaining past versions if needed.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Geissinger teach based, at least in part, on looking up the section-path identifier in the index store, obtaining at least one document identifier of at least one document of the plurality of documents; based, at least in part, on doc-to-row mapping store, obtaining one or more row identifiers corresponding to the at least one document identifier (see Geissinger, paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and [0059]; see Krishnamurthy, paragraphs [0063] and [0066]-[0067]; and see Figure 5; the system can utilize the section-path identifier to find a document identifier that will map to a row via row identifier/pointer so that the system can determine which rows to retrieve in view of the query).
With regard to claim 4, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach receiving a request to update the particular document and thereby generate a new updated document (see Krishnamurthy, paragraph [0077]; the system has means to update the documents).
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach do not appear to explicitly teach without re-indexing the plurality of documents to generate a new index store, deactivating mapping of the particular document in doc-to-row mapping store that maps the plurality of documents to the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS.
Geissinger teaches without re-indexing the plurality of documents to generate a new index store, deactivating mapping of the particular document in doc-to-row mapping store that maps the plurality of documents to the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS (see paragraphs [0054] and [0056] and Figure 7; the system can update mapping by deactivating/removing the mapping to the older version of the document).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang by allowing modifications and deactivating mappings to older documents as taught by Geissinger in order to allow the system to be able to not have to constantly re-create indexes for every change that occurs while being able to keep the document mapping up to date with means to also allow for users to be able to view older document versions.
With regard to claim 5, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Geissinger teach in response to receiving the request to update the particular document: inserting the new updated document in a new row of the one or more tables of the DBMS having a new row identifier, and generating a new document identifier corresponding to the new updated document; updating the doc-to-row mapping store to add a new row indicating association of the new document identifier with the new row identifier for the new updated document (see Geissinger, paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and [0059]; see Krishnamurthy, Figure 5 and paragraphs [0063] and [0067]; the system can update documents and insert new rows while being able to update the identifier associated with the document and associated mapping store to point to the newer version of the respective document).
With regard to claim 6, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Geissinger teach wherein the request is a DML statement to modify the particular document (see Geissinger, paragraph [0046]; DML statements can be used).
With regard to claims 15-17, these claims are substantially similar to claims 3-5 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al [US 11,481,439] in view of Krishnamurthy [US 2005/0055334 A1] and Yang et al [US 2012/0246334 A1] in further view of Kataoka et al [US 2015/0002320 A1] and Vemulapalli et al [US 2021/0357373 A1].
With regard to claim 7, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach evaluating the first query, the first query comprising a filtering criteria on node values; determining a result set of node values that match the filtering criteria (see col 9, lines 13-49; the system can evaluate queries and be able to use filtering criteria to reduce a result set responsive to various elements of a query).
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang does not appear to explicitly teach:
storing, in the index store, value-to-doc mapping comprising of plurality of bitmaps, wherein, for a unique node value, a corresponding bitmap is stored, each bit in the bitmap, of the plurality of bitmaps, representing a unique document of the plurality of documents in which the unique node value is present;
and selecting a result set of bitmaps corresponding to the result set of node values;
performing a bitwise operation corresponding to the filtering criteria on the result set of bitmaps, thereby, generating a resulting bitmap;
evaluating the first query using resulting one or more documents of the plurality of documents corresponding to one or more bits of the resulting bitmap.
Kataoka teaches storing, in the index store, value-to-doc mapping comprising of plurality of bitmaps, wherein, for a unique node value, a corresponding bitmap is stored, each bit in the bitmap, of the plurality of bitmaps, representing a unique document of the plurality of documents in which the unique node value is present (see paragraph [0003]; the bitmap index can store values to indicate the presence of the respective value in each respective document).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang by utilizing a bitmap instead of a list as taught by Kataoka in order to reduce storage space of data structures while still retaining the appropriate information about the presence (or absence) of particular keywords/tokens since storing a bit takes less storage space than document identifiers.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Kataoka teach and selecting a result set of bitmaps corresponding to the result set of node values (see Kataoka, paragraph [0003]; see Liu, col 9, lines 13-49; the system can evaluate queries and be able to use lists/bitmaps to get a result set satisfying various elements of a query).
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Kataoka do not appear to explicitly teach performing a bitwise operation corresponding to the filtering criteria on the result set of bitmaps, thereby, generating a resulting bitmap; evaluating the first query using resulting one or more documents of the plurality of documents corresponding to one or more bits of the resulting bitmap.
Vemulapalli teaches performing a bitwise operation corresponding to the filtering criteria on the result set of bitmaps, thereby, generating a resulting bitmap (see paragraph [0065]; the system can utilize bitwise operators on bitmaps to perform various logical filtering of results lists).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Kataoka by utilizing a bitwise operators for bitmaps as taught by Vemulapalli in order to allow the usage of common and widely used vector operations to be utilized on resulting bitmaps so that those bitmaps can be used for additional and efficient processing via logical operations without having to perform additional comparisons between lists composed of other data types thus allowing results to be filtered and determined quickly.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Kataoka and Vemulapalli teach evaluating the first query using resulting one or more documents of the plurality of documents corresponding to one or more bits of the resulting bitmap (see Vemulapalli, paragraph [0065]; see Kataoka, paragraph [0003]; see Liu, col 9, lines 13-49; the system can evaluate queries via bitmaps and be able to use the resulting sets of lists/bitmaps to perform bitwise operations to get a result set satisfying various elements/criteria of a query).
With regard to claim 8, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Kataoka and Vemulapalli teach wherein the filtering criteria on the node values is a value range, and the method further comprising performing a bitwise OR operation on the result set of bitmaps, thereby, generating the resulting bitmap (see Vemulapalli, paragraph [0065]; various logical operators can be used).
With regard to claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al [US 11,481,439] in view of Krishnamurthy [US 2005/0055334 A1] and Yang et al [US 2012/0246334 A1] in further view of Bhakta et al [US 2014/0244698].
With regard to claim 11, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang teach scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying a second section root node of a second section of nodes of the one or more sections of nodes, wherein the second section root node is associated with a second section path (see Krishnamurthy, Figures 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0046] and [0058]-[0060]; see Liu, col 3, lines 25-47; the system can scan the respective stored XML documents to determine a respective path/section and be able to create hash path signatures of the respective node and respective leaf nodes thereof).
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang do not appear to explicitly teach based at least in part on index configuration data, determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths; based, at least in part, on determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, exclude the second section root node and hierarchy of the second section root node from indexing.
Bhakta teaches based at least in part on index configuration data, determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths (see paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0011], and [0034]; the system can utilize configuration information including an exclusion list to determine where those items should be skipped).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document search and retrieval system of Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang by providing configuration information such as exclusion lists to skip particular folders/content from being indexed as taught by Bhakta in order to allow users or administrators of various computer systems greater control of being able to customize the information that is indexed for users to be able to search for thereby helping to save storage space by not indexing files/folders that should not be indexed while also helping to preserve data security by not having off-limit files/folders from being viewable/accessible from an index.
Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Bhakta teach based, at least in part, on determining whether the second section path a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, or b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, exclude the second section root node and hierarchy of the second section root node from indexing (see Bhakta, paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0011], and [0034]; see Krishnamurthy, Figures 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0046] and [0058]-[0060]; see Liu, col 3, lines 25-47; the system can index various documents and paths unless the respective document/path is on an exclusion list).
With regard to claim 12, Liu in view of Krishnamurthy and Yang in further view of Bhakta scanning the plurality of rows in the one or more tables of the DBMS; identifying one or more second leaf nodes of the second section root node, corresponding to one or more second leaf paths; based at least in part on the index configuration data, determining whether the second section each of the one or more second leaf paths a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, c) or has a node value of excluded data type; based, at least in part, on determining whether the second section each of the one or more second leaf paths a) is included in an exclusion index list of paths, b) is not included in an inclusion index list of paths, c) or has a node value of excluded data type, exclude the said each of the one or more second leaf paths from indexing (see Bhakta, paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0011], and [0034]; see Krishnamurthy, Figures 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0046] and [0058]-[0060]; see Liu, col 3, lines 25-47; the system can index various documents and paths unless the respective document/path is on an exclusion list including particular information/elements of documents).
With regard to claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see the third paragraph on page 12) with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to address the claim objections. In view of the amendments the respective claim objections have been withdrawn..
Applicant's arguments (see the fourth paragraph on page 12 through the third from last paragraph on page 16) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues (a) that the claims improve computer technology and (b) that the claims are integrated into a practical application since it changes the state of the query data and performs a query using the changed query data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to argument (a) about improving computer technology, the Examiner notes that, per MPEP 2106.05(a), it is “[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem…as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. The recitation of paragraph [0056] indicates the idea of a solution but provides little detail on how that is achieved. The Examiner notes that the section relates to sectional indexing with the claims indicating that sections exist in documents and identifiers for sections but only discusses the retrieving step in a high-level of generality that a result node is retrieved and also that a section-path identifier can be determined from a look-up. As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. With regard to argument (b), the applicant argues that the change associated with the data relates to a particular transformation as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c). The applicant’s arguments appear to indicate that changing the format of the query data results in a transformation to a different state or thing with regards to practical application; however, the query data is meant to be used to perform a query and the ‘transformed’ query data as applicant alleges is also meant to be used to perform a query. Merely converting digital data from one format to another does not appear to amount to a practical application since the ‘transformation’ would result in the query data still being used for the same function and use. Additionally, for data, merely manipulation of data has not been deemed a transformation. As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (see the second to last paragraph on page 16 through the last paragraph on page 19) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Liu and Krishnamurthy have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang. The applicant amended the claims to incorporate new limitations required further search and consideration. As illustrated in the 35 USC 103 rejections, the cited prior art references illustrate the usage of namespaces but did not appear to explicitly indicate that retrievals were for nodes with the same namespace indicator. The new reference, when combined, would appear to teach or suggest the claim limitations as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 10/3/2025