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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-11, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11822554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 11822554.
A method performed by executing instructions on at least one hardware processor, the method comprising:
“receiving one or more first-account queries”[ claim 1, col. 22 lines 60-62, database statements that are permitted by the first database account ; col. 23 lines 3-5, processing one or more first account queries received from the first database account] “directed to a first data clean room;”[ and col. 22 lines 54 a first database account sharing, in a data clean room]
“determining whether database statements within the one or more first-account queries are permitted by a first approved-statements table,” [col. 22 lines 60-62, first approved statement table that contains database statements(database statements within the one or more first account queries) that are permitted]
“the database statements including at least a first command to be executed on a first source dataset that resides in a first database account” [col. 22 lines 61-63, database statements (database statements including at least a first command)that are permitted by the first database account to be executed against a combination of the shared first source dataset and col. 22 lines 55-56, a first source dataset that resides in the first database account ]
“and a second command to be executed on a second source dataset that resides in a second database account,”[ col. 22 lines 61-63, database statements (database statements including …and a second command) that are permitted by the first database account to be executed against a combination of the shared first source data and the shared second source dataset and col. 22 lines 58-59, a second source dataset that resides in the second database account]
“the first source dataset and the second source dataset being within the first data clean room; and”[col. 22 lines 54-59, in a clean room…a first source dataset; col. 22 lines 55-59, in the clean reoom…a second source dataset]
“in response to determining that the database statements are permitted by the first approved-statements table,”[col. 22 lines 60-62, a first approved-statements table that contains database statements permitted by the first database account to be executed]
“executing the one or more first-account queries.” [col. 22 lines 60-62, executed]
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 2 of U.S. 11822554
The method of Claim 1, wherein executing the one or more first-account queries comprises: executing the one or more first-account queries against a combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and storing, in the first database account, results of the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 23 lines 9-16]
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 3 of U.S. 11822554.
The method of Claim 11, wherein executing the one or more second-account queries comprises: executing the one or more second-account queries against the combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and storing, in the second database account, results of the one or more second-account queries. [col. 23 lines 17-23]
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 8 of U.S. 11822554.
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts reside in a distributed database.”[col. 23 lines 40-41]
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 9 of U.S. 11822554.
The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts do not reside in a distributed database. [col. 23 lines 42-46, first and second database accounts do not reside in a distributed database is anticipated by residing on first and second database platform]
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is anticipated by claim 9 of U.S. 11822554.
The method of Claim 1, wherein: the first database account resides in a first networked database platform; and the second database account resides in a second networked database platform. [col. 23 lines 42-46]
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is anticipated by claim 10 of U.S. 11822554
“The method of Claim 15, wherein the first networked database platform and the second networked database platform are in different geographic regions.”[col. 23 lines 47-49]
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is anticipated by claim 11 of U.S. 11822554
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is anticipated by claim 11 of U.S. 11822554. Database account other than first is second in claim 11 of US 11822554.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is anticipated by claim 21 of U.S. 118822554.
b. Claims 1, 11-14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11928115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1-2 of U.S. 11928115
A method performed by executing instructions on at least one hardware processor, the method comprising:
“receiving one or more first-account queries directed to a first data clean room;”[ receiving one or more first-account queries (claim 2 col. 22 lines 59-60, query from first database account) directed to a first data clean room (claim 1 col. 22 lines 46-49, query directed to…distributed database)]
“determining whether database statements within the one or more first-account queries are permitted by a first approved-statements table,”[col. 22 lines 50-53, approved statements table that contains database statement language that can be executed against the combination of the first and second source dataset]
“the database statements including at least a first command to be executed on a first source dataset that resides in a first database account and” [col. 22 line 50-53, database statement language that can be executed against the combination of the first…source dataset. Col. 22 line 46-47, first source data set from a first database account]
“a second command to be executed on a second source dataset that resides in a second database account,”[col. 22 line 50-53, database statement language that can be executed against the combination of the…second source dataset. Col. 22 lines 48-49, second source dataset from a second database account]
“the first source dataset and the second source dataset being within the first data clean room; and” [col. 22 lines 45-49 a first source dataset…of a distributed database; col. 22 lines 45-49 a second source dataset…of the distributed database. First data clean room is anticipated by distributed database]
“in response to determining that the database statements are permitted by the first approved-statements table, executing the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 22 lines 54-57]
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 1 and 2 of U.S. 11928115
“The method of Claim 1, wherein executing the one or more first-account queries comprises: executing the one or more first-account queries against a combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and”[col. 22 lines 51-60; query from first account anticipates first account queries; and first source dataset and second source dataset anticipates shared first source dataset and shared second source dataset. ]
“storing, in the first database account, results of the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 22 lines 55-57]
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 9 of U.S. 11928115.
“The method of Claim 11, wherein executing the one or more second-account queries comprises: executing the one or more second-account queries against the combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and storing, in the second database account, results of the one or more second-account queries. [col. 23 lines 15-23; from second database account, a second query anticipates second-account queries; and first source dataset and second source dataset anticipates shared first source dataset and shared second source dataset]
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 11928115.
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts reside in a distributed database.”[col. 22 lines 46-49, of the distributed database anticipates in a distributed database]
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 11928115
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts do not reside in a distributed database.” [col. 22 lines 46-49, of the distributed database anticipates do not reside in distributed database]
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is anticipated by claim 11-12 of U.S. 11928115.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is anticipated by claim 21-22 of U.S. 11928115.
c. Claims 1, 11, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 12-13, 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11567943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1-2 of U.S. 11567943.
A method performed by executing instructions on at least one hardware processor, the method comprising:
receiving one or more first-account queries directed to a first data clean room; [claim 1 col. 22 lines 46-48, database statements that are executable via the distributed database; claim 2 col. 22 lines 62-64, database statements in the approved statements table comprise a query request from the first database.; query from first database anticipates first account queries and distributed database anticipates first data clean room ]
“determining whether database statements within the one or more first-account queries are permitted by a first approved-statements table,”[col. 22 lines 52-53 and col. 22 lines 62-64]
“the database statements including at least a first command to be executed on a first source dataset that resides in a first database account and” [col. 22 lines 46-51; source dataset anticipates first source dataset and first database anticipates first database account]
“a second command to be executed on a second source dataset that resides in a second database account,”[col. 22 lines 42-45 and col. 22 lines 46-51; first/second shared source data set anticipate the claimed second source dataset and second/third database anticipate a second database account ]
“the first source dataset and the second source dataset being within the first data clean room; and” [col. 22 lines 42-45 and col. 22 lines 49-51; first source dataset is anticipated by source dataset, second source dataset is anticipated by first/second shared source dataset, and first data clean room is anticipated by distributed database]
“in response to determining that the database statements are permitted by the first approved-statements table, executing the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 22 lines 54-59]
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 1 and 2 of U.S. 11567943
“The method of Claim 1, wherein executing the one or more first-account queries comprises: executing the one or more first-account queries against a combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and”[col. 22 lines 47-51 and claim 2 col. 22 lines 62-64 ]
“storing, in the first database account, results of the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 22 lines 56-61]
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 11567943.
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts reside in a distributed database.”[col. 22 lines 41-45; first database anticipates first database account; second/third database anticipates second database account; and of the distributed database anticipates in a distributed database]
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 11567943
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts do not reside in a distributed database.” [col. 22 lines 41-45; first database anticipates first database account; second/third database anticipates second database account; and of the distributed database anticipates do not reside in a distributed database]
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is anticipated by claims 12-13 of US 11567943.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is anticipated by claims 20-21 of US 11567943.
d. Claims 1, 11, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12067019. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 of U.S. 12067019.
A method performed by executing instructions on at least one hardware processor, the method comprising:
receiving one or more first-account queries directed to a first data clean room; [claim 1 col. 18 lines 19-22 and col. 18 lines 3-9; database statement by the first database account anticipates first account queries; and distributed database anticipates first data clean room]
“determining whether database statements within the one or more first-account queries are permitted by a first approved-statements table,”[col. 18 line 24, determining… that the database statement is in the approved-statements table]
“the database statements including at least a first command to be executed on a first source dataset that resides in a first database account and” [col. 18 lines 25-26, executing the database statement against the first local dataset; col. 18 lines 6-7, first local dataset stored locally by the first database account]
“a second command to be executed on a second source dataset that resides in a second database account,”[col. 18 lines 25-27 executing the database statement against …the synchronized data in the shared source dataset; col. 18 lines 4-5, shared source dataset from a second database account]
“the first source dataset and the second source dataset being within the first data clean room; and” [col. 18 lines 3-5; distributed database anticipates first data clean room]
“in response to determining that the database statements are permitted by the first approved-statements table, executing the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 18 lines 24-27 and col. 18 lines 33-34]
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 1 and 9 of U.S. 12067019
“The method of Claim 1, wherein executing the one or more first-account queries comprises: executing the one or more first-account queries against a combination of the shared first source dataset and the shared second source dataset; and”[col. 18 lines 19-27 and claim 9 adding a subset of the first source dataset to the shared source dataset anticipates shared first source dataset]
“storing, in the first database account, results of the one or more first-account queries.”[col. 18 lines 33-34]
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 12067019.
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts reside in a distributed database.”[col. 18 lines 3-5; of a distributed database anticipates reside in a distributed database]
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. 12067019
“The method of Claim 1, wherein both the first and second database accounts do not reside in a distributed database.” [col. 18 lines 3-5; of a distributed database anticipates do not reside in a distributed database]
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is anticipated by claims 16 of US 12067019.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is anticipated by claims 17 of US 12067019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the shared first source dataset" and “the shared second source dataset” in claim 11 line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the shared first source dataset" and “the shared second source dataset” in claim 12 line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record, single or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the step of:
“determining whether database statements within the one or more first-account queries are permitted by a first approved-statements table,…
in response to determining that the database statements are permitted by the first approved-statements table, executing the one or more first-account queries.”, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Independent claims 17 and 20 recite similar limitations as that of claim 1 except they are directed to a system and non-transitory computer readable storage media instead of a system. Claims 17 and 20 and therefore would be allowable over the prior art of record for similar reasons as that of method claim 1.
Claims 2-10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2020/0379995 by Rajaperumai discloses 0031-0032 wherein there is a manufacturer (receiver) and retail store (provider), being able to share data. That the provider (retail store) allows for the owned data to be shared via a materialized view to the manufacturer. Fig. 10 provides for where a provider is able to provide a materialized view by use of data from stored disk or cache storage or use it directly from the shared objects. Accordingly, Raiaperumai provides for querying directed to a first clean room (generating a materialized view over shared objects), that the query executes over two data sets (disk / shared object) and that the two data sets reside on different database accounts (data from disk is accessible only to the provider / shared object is accessible by receiver/manufacturer). The generated materialized view using data from the provider and the data from the shared object are both within the shared object since data provided by the provider can be placed in the shared object. While Raiaperumai discloses the above there does not appear to be any approved statements table that permit database statements of the queries to be executed.
Raiapeurmai appears to disclose:
receiving one or more first-account queries directed to a first data clean room; [receiving one or more first-account queries (0034, materialized view is a database object that stores results of a query ;0087, materialized view over data within shared object) directed to a first data clean room (0087, share object)]
“
“the database statements including at least a first command to be executed on a first source dataset that resides in a first database account and” [the database statements including at least a first command to be executed (0087, materialized view can be generated by …provider, ) on a first source dataset (0087, data stored in disk or cache storage)that resides in a first database account (0087, provider)]
“a second command to be executed on a second source dataset that resides in a second database account,”[ a second command to be executed on a second source dataset (0087, directly and/or by way of the share object) that resides in a second database account (0087, available to receiver)]
“the first source dataset and the second source dataset being within the first data clean room; and” [the first source dataset (0087, data stored in disk/cache) and the second source dataset (0087, by way of the share object) being within the first data clean room (fig. 10 1010); and]
“
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-730pm Eastern.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/MICHAEL PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167