DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed June 16, 2026. Claims 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are currently amended. Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 12, 17, 19 and 23-24 are canceled. Claims 5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-22 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mesnier et al. (US 2022/0188028 A1) (‘Mesnier’) in view of Huo et al. (US 2018/0260136 A1) (‘Huo’), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 6266660 B1) (‘Liu’).
With respect to claim 5, Mesnier teaches a storage system comprising: a host device (102) and storage device (104), wherein the host device comprises:
a host storage (paragraph 68); and
a processor (paragraph 68) configured to:
acquire query information from the host storage based on a query request (paragraphs 69 and 81-82);
send the query information to the storage device for storing into a memory of the storage device (paragraphs 70, 72, 83 and 89);
send the query request to the storage device to initiate a query for the requested data at the storage device (paragraph 70, 72-73, and 83); and
receive a result of the query request from the storage device (paragraph 86).
Mesnier does not explicitly teach a B-tree query request for a table.
Huo teaches a B-tree query request for a table (read or write request - “executing” (or “flushing”) a write request (including data to be written and a logical block address (LBA) identifying the location to which the data are to be written) refers to storing data to be written at the physical address, in nonvolatile memory 110, corresponding (according to one or more tables maintained by the flash translation layer) to the LBA) (paragraphs 19, 43 and 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the request of Mesnier to be B-tree query requests as taught by Huo because Mesnier teaches that there are a limitless compute functions that can be offloaded onto storage (paragraph 134), and thus it would have been obvious to swap the query processing of Mesnier to be B-tree based query processing as taught by Huo to achieve offloading of compute functions to storage devices. Further, the modification would enable in-memory B-tree storage that keeps data sorted and allows searches, sequential access, insertions, and deletions in logarithmic time (Huo, paragraph 43).
Further regarding claim 5, Mesnier in view of Huo does not explicitly teach wherein the storage device is configured to: acquire a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information; and acquire a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information, wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table.
Liu teaches wherein the storage device is configured to: acquire a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12); and
acquire a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12),
wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table (col. 1 lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mesnier in view of Huo to use a secondary index and have a target field not in a leaf node of a secondary index because it is obvious that any field of a table can be a target field, and further Liu teaches that a common implementation of a secondary index B-tree, the secondary index B-tree does not contain data records at the leaf nodes (col. 1 lines 42-44). Further, the secondary index search reduces the number of searches in the primary balanced tree. Fewer searches means fewer file I/Os and consequently faster performance for a select query using the secondary index search (Liu, col. 2 lines 51-62).
With respect to claim 8, Mesnier in view of Huo and Liu teaches the storage system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to package the B-tree query request and the query information through a protocol to send to the storage device (Mesnier, paragraphs 69-70 and 73; Huo, paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 9, Mesnier teaches a B-tree based retrieval method performed by a storage device, comprising:
receiving, from a host device, query information (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89);
storing the query information into a memory of the storage device (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89);
receiving a query request from the host device to initiate a query (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89) ;
acquiring a result of the query request by using the query information (paragraph 89); and
sending the result of the query request to the host device (paragraphs 86 and 90).
Mesnier does not explicitly teach a B-tree query request for a table.
Huo teaches a B-tree query request for a table (read or write request - “executing” (or “flushing”) a write request (including data to be written and a logical block address (LBA) identifying the location to which the data are to be written) refers to storing data to be written at the physical address, in nonvolatile memory 110, corresponding (according to one or more tables maintained by the flash translation layer) to the LBA) (paragraphs 19, 43 and 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the request of Mesnier to be B-tree query requests as taught by Huo because Mesnier teaches that there are a limitless compute functions that can be offloaded onto storage (paragraph 134), and thus it would have been obvious to swap the query processing of Mesnier to be B-tree based query processing as taught by Huo to achieve offloading of compute functions to storage devices. Further, the modification would enable in-memory B-tree storage that keeps data sorted and allows searches, sequential access, insertions, and deletions in logarithmic time (Huo, paragraph 43).
Further regarding claim 9, Mesnier in view of Huo does not explicitly teach acquiring a result by: acquiring a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information; and acquiring a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information, wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table.
Liu teaches wherein the storage device is configured to: acquiring a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12); and
acquiring a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12),
wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table (col. 1 lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mesnier in view of Huo to use a secondary index and have a target field not in a leaf node of a secondary index because it is obvious that any field of a table can be a target field, and further Liu teaches that a common implementation of a secondary index B-tree, the secondary index B-tree does not contain data records at the leaf nodes (col. 1 lines 42-44). Further, the secondary index search reduces the number of searches in the primary balanced tree. Fewer searches means fewer file I/Os and consequently faster performance for a select query using the secondary index search (Liu, col. 2 lines 51-62).
With respect to claim 16, Mesnier teaches a storage device (104 in paragraph 68) comprising:
a storage (paragraphs 73 and 76);
a memory (paragraphs 73 and 76); and
a processor (paragraph 73) configured to
receive, from a host device, query information (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89);
store the query information into the memory (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89);
receive a query request from the host device to initiate a query (paragraphs 70, 76, 88-89);
acquire a result of the query request by using the query information (paragraph 89); and
send the result of the query request to the host device (paragraphs 86 and 90).
Mesnier does not explicitly teach a B-tree query request for a table.
Huo teaches a B-tree query request for a table (read or write request - “executing” (or “flushing”) a write request (including data to be written and a logical block address (LBA) identifying the location to which the data are to be written) refers to storing data to be written at the physical address, in nonvolatile memory 110, corresponding (according to one or more tables maintained by the flash translation layer) to the LBA) (paragraphs 19, 43 and 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the request of Mesnier to be B-tree query requests as taught by Huo because Mesnier teaches that there are a limitless compute functions that can be offloaded onto storage (paragraph 134), and thus it would have been obvious to swap the query processing of Mesnier to be B-tree based query processing as taught by Huo to achieve offloading of compute functions to storage devices. Further, the modification would enable in-memory B-tree storage that keeps data sorted and allows searches, sequential access, insertions, and deletions in logarithmic time (Huo, paragraph 43).
Further regarding claim 16, Mesnier in view of Huo does not explicitly teach acquiring a result by: acquiring a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information; and acquiring a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information, wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table.
Liu teaches wherein the storage device is configured to: acquiring a primary key value of a root page of at least one target root node of the table corresponding to the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of each root node of a secondary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12); and
acquiring a key value of a target field corresponding to the B-tree query request as the result of the B-tree query request by traversing and retrieving a root page of a root node, corresponding to the primary key value, of a primary index of the table using the query information (col. 1 lines 33-50; col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 13; col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 12),
wherein the target field of the B-tree query request is a field that is not contained in leaf nodes of a secondary index of the table (col. 1 lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mesnier in view of Huo to use a secondary index and have a target field not in a leaf node of a secondary index because it is obvious that any field of a table can be a target field, and further Liu teaches that a common implementation of a secondary index B-tree, the secondary index B-tree does not contain data records at the leaf nodes (col. 1 lines 42-44). Further, the secondary index search reduces the number of searches in the primary balanced tree. Fewer searches means fewer file I/Os and consequently faster performance for a select query using the secondary index search (Liu, col. 2 lines 51-62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 13-15, 18, 20-22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 5, 9, and 16 are allowable based on the subject matter that has been incorporated from claims 12 and 19, which were objected to as allowable. However, claims 12 and 19 were objected to as allowable “if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims,” which would have included claim limitations from claims 10-12 and 17-19, respectively. However, Applicant did not include all limitations of the base claim and intervening claims. For example, limitations from claims 11 and 18 are not included in the claims. As such, claims 5, 9, and 16 are rejected because the query information used in claims 5, 9 and 16 does not include the specific query information recited in claims 11 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bruso et al. teaches B-tree retrieval using a secondary index in which leaf nodes may not store records themselves.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights