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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
Applicant's claimed invention relates to an improved technique for joining tables in a database system. The Examiner's assertion that the claimed steps could be performed mentally is incorrect. For example, claim 1 recites generating a probabilistic data structure for each table in a set of join operations. These operations are not feasible for a human, either mentally or manually. The claim is explicitly directed to a "computer- implemented method", and every step is performed by a computer processor. Claims do not recite a mental process when they recite limitations that cannot be practically performed in the mind. See, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). For at least this reason, the pending claims recite patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Under Step 2A, the claim recites determining an order of joining database tables by calculating cardinality estimates, comparing results, and selecting a preferred join sequence, which constitutes a mathematical concept and mental process (i.e., evaluating alternatives and selecting an optimal order) and therefore an abstract idea. The additional elements, including a “computer processor” and “probabilistic data structures,” are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the abstract idea using generic computing components, and thus do not integrate the exception into a practical application. Under Step 2B, the claim does not recite an inventive concept, as the use of probabilistic data structures for estimating cardinality and ordering joins is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of database query optimization, and the ordered combination of elements amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Next, Applicant argues “In sum, applicant's claimed invention is a technique for joining tables in a database using probabilistic data structures having a lower memory footprint and cardinality estimates for the joins can be calculated very efficiently. See, paragraph [0027] of the published application. In this way, the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer and is integrated into a practical application.”
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. The alleged improvement—using probabilistic data structures with lower memory usage and efficient cardinality estimation (see ¶ [0027])—amounts to an improvement in the abstract idea of evaluating and selecting join operations, rather than an improvement to computer functionality itself. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement to how the computer operates (e.g., an improvement to memory architecture, data storage, or processing techniques at a technical level), but instead uses generic computing components to perform routine data processing more efficiently. Here, the claimed use of probabilistic data structures is itself described at a high level and reflects a well-understood, routine, and conventional technique in database systems. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues “Assuming the claims are properly analyzed in accordance with Federal Circuit precedence and PTO guidelines, the combination of claimed elements set forth an improved technique for joining tables in a database using probabilistic data structures and thereby is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection.”
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. The asserted “improved technique” for joining tables using probabilistic data structures reflects an alleged improvement in the abstract idea of selecting and ordering join operations based on estimated results, rather than a technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. The claim does not recite any specific implementation details that improve computer functionality, such as a particularized data structure arrangement, memory architecture, or processing technique beyond generic data manipulation. Instead, the probabilistic data structures are invoked at a high level and perform their conventional function of estimating cardinality. As such, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract process more efficiently, which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Furthermore, under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as the recited elements, individually and in combination, represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of database query optimization. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant Argues
Applicant's claimed invention sets forth an improved technique for joining tables in a database using probabilistic data structures. Of note, Claim 1 recites "selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations" in combination with other claim elements. The rejection relies on Young to teach this aspect. Young, however, merely references a joinability score. Young does not teach selecting a join operation having the lowest cardinality score amongst join operations in a set of join operations. Unlike the "joinability" score which is a heuristic metric representing a predicted level of success in performing a join operation, the term "cardinality" relates to an expected number of rows resulting from a join operation. As both terms are clearly different and the selection of join operations is based on the cardinality, Young does not teach or suggest this claimed aspect
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Here, Young discloses d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations (paragraph[0083], the reference describes using a threshold to determining the lowest score. The pseudocode is using the setSketch method of finding the lowest score between join operations.). Here, paragraph [0083] describes ranking or prioritizing join paths based on calculated scores to determine which joins should be performed, thereby guiding the construction of a join graph. Although Young refers to a “joinability score” rather than a “cardinality estimate,” this distinction is not meaningful, as both are quantitative metrics used to evaluate and compare join operations. The claimed limitation of selecting a join operation having the lowest cardinality estimate corresponds to selecting a join based on an optimal value of a computed metric, which is the same fundamental selection process taught by Young. Substituting a known metric such as cardinality estimation for Young’s joinability score would have been an obvious and predictable variation, as cardinality estimates are well-known in the art for determining join order. Accordingly, Young teaches or at least suggests the claimed limitation, and Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined;
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations;
e) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations;
f) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations; and
g) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a database system” and “a computer processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the computer processor, “for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined” encompasses mentally a person determining for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined.
Next, but for the computer processor, “selecting a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations” encompasses mentally a person selecting a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person removing the selected join operation from the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person replacing the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query.” encompasses mentally a person repeating steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query. The mere nominal recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation:
a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;
b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;
Here, “receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating joins in a query based on a cardinality estimate cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” is merely data gathering. Versata Dev. Group court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere storing data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “wherein the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein selecting a join operation further comprises performing the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a join operation further comprises performing the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein performing a selected join operation includes one of a hash join or a sort merge join.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing a selected join operation includes one of a hash join or a sort merge join. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “comprises joining tables in the join query according to the order for joining tables.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person joining tables in the join query according to the order for joining tables. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 11-17 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 11 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined;
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations;
e) performing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table;
f) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations;
g) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined with the new table in the set of join operations;
h) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to g) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby joining tables in the join query.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a database system” and “a computer processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the computer processor, “for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined;” encompasses mentally a person determining for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined.
Next, but for the computer processor, “selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person selecting a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “performing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table;” encompasses mentally a person performing the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table.
Next, but for the computer processor, “removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations” encompasses mentally a person removing the selected join operation from the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined with the new table in the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person replacing the tables to be joined with the new table in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to g) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby joining tables in the join query.” encompasses mentally a person repeating steps c) to g) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby joining tables in the join query. The mere nominal recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional limitation:
a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;
b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;
Here, “receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 11 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating joins in a query based on a cardinality estimate cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” is merely data gathering. Versata Dev. Group court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere storing data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “wherein the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations.. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 18 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 18 recites an apparatus and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 18 recites a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the SetSketch data structures for the tables to be joined;
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations;
e) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations;
f) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations; and
g) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a database system” and “a computer processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 18 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the computer processor, “for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the SetSketch data structures for the tables to be joined” encompasses mentally a person determining for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the SetSketch data structures for the tables to be joined.
Next, but for the computer processor, “selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations” encompasses mentally a person selecting a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person removing the selected join operation from the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations;” encompasses mentally a person replacing the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations.
Next, but for the computer processor, “repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query” encompasses mentally a person repeating steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query. The mere nominal recitation of “a database system” and “a computer processor” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 18 recites the additional limitation:
a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;
b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;
Here, “receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 18 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating joins in a query based on a cardinality estimate cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 18 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;” is merely data gathering. Versata Dev. Group court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere storing data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other;” and “b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. U.S. Patent (2017/0193045; hereinafter: Young) in view of Izenov et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Compass: Online Sketch-based Query Optimization for In-Memory Databases”, 2021, hereinafter: Izenov)
Claim 1
As to claim 1, Young discloses a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables
according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other (paragraph[0024]-paragraph[0025], the reference describes joining a table using a join operation (i.e., join query, as claimed).);
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations (paragraph[0083], the reference describes using a threshold to determining the lowest score.);
e) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations (paragraph[0083], the reference describes removing the join.);
f) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations (paragraph[0083, the reference describes replacing the existing table with another table.); and
g) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query (paragraph[0083], the reference describes using the analyzing code until it reaches a condition.).
Young does not appear to explicitly disclose b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined;
However, Izenov discloses b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure (Figure 1, page 805 of PDF, COMPASS query optimizer, the reference describes using a sketch that is generated for each join operation. The sketch algorithm uses the cardinality estimation and stored in partitions (e.g., pages 806-807).);
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined (pages 806-807, Figure 3, the reference describes creating a sketch structure based on the cardinality estimation for join queries.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to create a set sketch graph which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to efficiently provide an query optimizers on a large range of statistical synopses (Izenov: Abstract).
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure (page 810 of PDF, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes the maximum and minimum being using to merge and change the data based on the calculation of the number of tuples.).
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two (page 810 of PDF, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes the number of sketches corresponds to a table that each to the number (i.e., greater than one and less than two, as claimed) of joins it participates in.).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation (pages 810, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes merging based on the cardinality estimates.).
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle (page 807 of PDF, the reference describes using the selectivity of cardinalities (i.e., inclusion-exclusion principle, as claimed) for all the based tables that have selections.).
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Young further disclose wherein selecting a join operation further comprises performing the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table (paragraph[0095], the reference describes updated the cardinality based on new joins.).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Young further disclose wherein the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations (paragraph[0096], the reference describes determining cardinality of columns in join tables.).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure (page 809 of PDF, the reference describes using sketch data structures.).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose further comprises joining tables in the join query according to the order for joining tables (page 807 of PDF, the reference describes determining the join order of tables based on the sketch cardinality estimation.).
Claim 11
As to claim 11, Young discloses a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other (paragraph[0024]-paragraph[0025], the reference describes joining a table using a join operation (i.e., join query, as claimed).);
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations(paragraph[0083], the reference describes using a threshold to determining the lowest score.);
e) performing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation to form a new table and generating a probabilistic data structure for the new table(paragraph[0095], the reference describes updated the cardinality based on new joins.);
f) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations(paragraph[0083], the reference describes removing the join.);
g) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined with the new table in the set of join operations(paragraph[0083, the reference describes replacing the existing table with another table.);
h) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to g) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby joining tables in the join query(paragraph[0083], the reference describes using the analyzing code until it reaches a condition.).
Young does not appear to explicitly disclose b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure;
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined;
However, Izenov discloses b) generating, by the computer processor, a probabilistic data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations, where the probabilistic data structure is partitioned into a plurality of registers and configuration parameters for the probabilistic data structure includes a first recording parameter, base, that controls recording of data into the probabilistic data structure(Figure 1, page 805 of PDF, COMPASS query optimizer, the reference describes using a sketch that is generated for each join operation. The sketch algorithm uses the cardinality estimation and stored in partitions (e.g., pages 806-807).);
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the probabilistic data structures for the tables to be joined(pages 806-807, Figure 3, the reference describes creating a sketch structure based on the cardinality estimation for join queries.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to create a set sketch graph which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to efficiently provide an query optimizers on a large range of statistical synopses (Izenov: Abstract).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the probabilistic data structure is updated in accordance with the first recording parameter and a second recording parameter, rate, such that changing a value of the first recording parameter and changing the number of registers sets the maximum number of distinct data elements that can be represented by the probabilistic data structure (page 810 of PDF, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes the maximum and minimum being using to merge and change the data based on the calculation of the number of tuples.).
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the value of the first recording parameter is greater than one and less than two (page 810 of PDF, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes the number of sketches corresponds to a table that each to the number (i.e., greater than one and less than two, as claimed) of joins it participates in.).
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein calculating a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation includes merging the probabilistic data structure for each table specified by the particular join operation (pages 810, 5.2 Sketch Merging, the reference describes merging based on the cardinality estimates.).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose calculating a cardinality estimate using inclusion-exclusion principle (page 807 of PDF, the reference describes using the selectivity of cardinalities (i.e., inclusion-exclusion principle, as claimed) for all the based tables that have selections.).
Claim 16
As to claim 16, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Young further disclose wherein the set of join operations involves multiple columns of a table and further comprises generating a probabilistic data structure for each column of the table specified in the set of join operations (paragraph[0096], the reference describes determining cardinality of columns in join tables.).
Claim 17
As to claim 17, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Izenov further disclose wherein the probabilistic data structure is SetSketch data structure (page 809 of PDF, the reference describes using sketch data structures.).
Claim 18
As to claim 18, Young discloses a computer-implemented method for joining tables in a database system, comprising:
a) receiving, by a computer processor, a request to join three or more tables according to a join query, where the join query specifies a set of join operations and each join operation joins two tables with each other(paragraph[0024]-paragraph[0025], the reference describes joining a table using a join operation (i.e., join query, as claimed).);
d) selecting, by the computer processor, a join operation in the set of join operations, where the selected join operation has the lowest cardinality estimate amongst the join operations in the set of join operations(paragraph[0083], the reference describes using a threshold to determining the lowest score.);
e) removing, by the computer processor, the selected join operation from the set of join operations(paragraph[0083], the reference describes removing the join.);
f) replacing, by the computer processor, the tables to be joined by the selected join operation with the joint of these tables in the set of join operations (paragraph[0083, the reference describes replacing the existing table with another table.); and
g) repeating, by the computer processor, steps c) to f) until the set of join operations comprises a single join operation, thereby defining an order for joining tables in the join query(paragraph[0083], the reference describes using the analyzing code until it reaches a condition.).
Young does not appear to explicitly disclose b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations;
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the SetSketch data structures for the tables to be joined;
However, Izenov discloses b) generating, by the computer processor, a SetSketch data structure for each table specified in the set of join operations(Figure 1, page 805 of PDF, COMPASS query optimizer, the reference describes using a sketch that is generated for each join operation. The sketch algorithm uses the cardinality estimation and stored in partitions (e.g., pages 806-807).);
c) for each join operation in the set of join operations, calculating, by the computer processor, a cardinality estimate of table resulting from a particular join operation using the SetSketch data structures for the tables to be joined (pages 806-807, Figure 3, the reference describes creating a sketch structure based on the cardinality estimation for join queries.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to create a set sketch graph which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov to efficiently provide an query optimizers on a large range of statistical synopses (Izenov: Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. U.S. Patent (2017/0193045; hereinafter: Young) in view of Izenov et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Compass: Online Sketch-based Query Optimization for In-Memory Databases”, 2021, hereinafter: Izenov) and further in view of Funke et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0377813; hereinafter: Funke)
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Young and Izenov discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein performing a selected join operation includes one of a hash join or a sort merge join.
However, Funke discloses wherein performing a selected join operation includes one of a hash join or a sort merge join (paragraph[[0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov and Funke to have hash join operations which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Young with the teachings of Izenov and Funke to efficiently reduce the amount of data scanned in a large data set (Funke: paragraph[0024]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishan U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0177623) teaches using estimating a cardinality of a database pair-wise join query.
Final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 4, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights