DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted October 2, 2025 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments towards 35 USC 101
The Applicant states that the added feature, “the base index file further comprises a storage location of the data file and a storage location of the additional index file” overcomes the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The added feature describes what is stored in a file. Describing content of a file is extra solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to the feature including “an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The added feature does not provide additional functionality. Rather, it further describes how data is stored, and is thus extra solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the feature does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Arguments towards 35 USC 103
The Applicant states that Infante Suarez does not disclose “the base index file further comprises a storage location of the data file and a storage location of the additional index file.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Infante Suarez [0067] discloses where a global index (i.e. base index) contains locations of local indexes. Local indexes (as described at least in [0037]) contain storage locations of files (such as at least raster images).
As to arguments that Infante Suarez is used in a different manner, the Examiner would not necessarily disagree with that point. However, Infante Suarez, as described above, discloses index usage and locating data in a manner consistent with the functionality of the above argued limitation.
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 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract ide without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 7 and 14 are directed towards querying data. Specifically, the claims recite:
receiving, by an electronic device, a data query request, the data query request being used for querying data from a columnar storage system which applies object storage technology, the columnar storage system comprising an index file and a data file which are stored individually, wherein the data file is stored at a data region, and the index file is stored at an index region different from the data region - Receiving a request for data is a data gathering feature. Such a feature is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the electronic device, the index file based on the data query request by calling a network input/output (IO) one time to read the index file after receiving the data query request or prior to receiving the data query request - Receiving a request to read the index file, is a data gathering feature. Such a feature is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
determining, by the electronic device, based on the index file, a storage range in the data file of target data which matches the data query request – Identifying where data is stored based on received information is something that a person is able to do in their head or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
calling, by the electronic device, a network input and output to read the target data stored in the storage range - Identifying where data is stored based on received information is something that a person is able to do in their head or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
wherein the index file comprises a base index file and an additional index file the base index file comprises base index information corresponding to each column block in the data file, the base index information corresponding to each column block is used for indicating a storage location corresponding to a respective data page in the each column block, the additional index file comprises additional index information corresponding to at least one column block in the data file, the additional index information corresponding to each of the at least one column block is used for determining, in a query phase, whether data to be queried is located at the each column block, and the base index file further comprises a storage location of the data file and a storage location of the additional index file – Describing contents of an index file is extra solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such an electronic device, a processor, memory, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 8-11, and 15-18 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the Claims recite more details of where files are stored (Claims 2-3, 8-10, 15-17) and further data gathering steps (Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0139988) in view of Kim (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0344619) further in view of Murphy (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0102256) and further in view of Infante Suarez et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0337229).
Claims 1, 7 and 14: Ma discloses a method, a device and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
receiving a data query request, the data query request being used for querying data from a columnar storage system which applies object storage technology[0027], the columnar storage system comprising an index file and a data file which are stored individually [0034]. [See at least a min-max index and “data files.”]
Ma alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the data file is stored at a data region, and the index file is stored at an index region different from the data region.
However, Kim [0026] discloses storing data files in data regions and index files in index regions.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ma with Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to separate where different types of data is stored for simpler data retrieval.
Ma as modified further discloses:
obtaining the index file based on the data query request [0034].
determining, based on the index file, a storage range in the data file of target data which matches the data query request [0034]. [“Min-max index can be a part of indexing that provide statistical information of value ranges… the min-max index can be used to skip a portion of data files.”]
calling a network input and output to read the target data stored in the storage range [0027].
Ma alone also does not explicitly disclose obtaining, by the electronic device, the index file based on the data query request by calling a network input/output (IO) one time to read the index file after receiving the data query request or prior to receiving the data query request; and the index file comprises a base index file and an additional index file, the base index file comprises base index information corresponding to each column block in the data file, the base index information corresponding to each column block is used for indicating a storage location corresponding to a respective data page in the each column block, the additional index file comprises additional index information corresponding to at least one column block in the data file, and the additional index information corresponding to each of the at least one column block is used for determining, in a query phase, whether data to be queried is located at the each column block, and the base index file further comprises a storage location of the data file and a storage location of the additional index file.
As to obtaining, by the electronic device, the index file based on the data query request by calling a network input/output (IO) one time to read the index file after receiving the data query request or prior to receiving the data query request, See at least Murphy [0056]. There, Murphy discloses reading an index file in response to a request for data (i.e. query).
Murphy further discloses:
the index file comprises a base index file and an additional index file - see Murphy [0041] disclosing at least two indexes.
the base index file comprises base index information corresponding to each column block in the data file – see Murphy [0044] disclosing index file that lists blocks of data and see Ma [0036] disclosing an index that pointing to blocks of data in a columnar storage.
the base index information corresponding to each column block is used for indicating a storage location corresponding to a respective data page in the each column block - see Murphy [0058] disclosing checking where data is stored.
the additional index file comprises additional index information corresponding to at least one column block in the data file - see Murphy [0044] disclosing index file that lists blocks of data
the additional index information corresponding to each of the at least one column block is used for determining, in a query phase, whether data to be queried is located at the each column block - see Murphy [0058] disclosing checking where data is stored
the base index file further comprises a storage location of the data file and a storage location of the additional index file – see Infante Suarez [0067] disclosing where a global index (i.e. base index) contains locations of local indexes. Local indexes (as described at least in [0037]) contain storage locations of files (such as at least raster images).
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ma with Murphy and Infante Suarez. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to retrieve data using indexes.
Claims 2, 8 and 15: Ma discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 7 and 14 above, and Ma further discloses wherein obtaining the index file based on the data query request comprises: calling the network input and output to read the index file based on the data query request [0034].
Claims 3, 9 and 16: Ma discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 7 and 14 above, but Ma alone does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the index file based on the data query request comprises: obtaining the index file which is pre-saved in a local cache based on the data query request.
However, Murphy [0036] disclose saving an index in a local index cache.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ma with Murphy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to “increase performance.”
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Ma discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 10 and 17 above, but Ma alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the target data comprises data carried in a plurality of data pages, and the method further comprises: processing the target data based on the data query request to obtain a query result corresponding to the data query request, the query result comprising data carried in a part of the plurality of data pages; and storing an identifier of each data page in the part of data pages and data carried in each data page in a local cache correspondingly.
However, Murphy [0031] discloses having data pages that are retrieved in response to a query and Murphy [0054] further discloses creating a key (i.e. identifier) for data pages.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ma with Murphy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to retrieve data using at least keys of requested data.
Claims 10 and 17: Ma discloses the device and the medium of Claims 7 and 14 above, but Ma alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the target data comprises data carried in a plurality of data pages.
However, Murphy [0031] discloses having data pages that are retrieved in response to a query.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ma with Murphy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to retrieve data in stored pages.
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights