DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Foreign priority documents have been electronically retrieved by USPTO from a participating IP office on 2/3/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, Jr. et al. (US 10,459,918) hereinafter Edwards, Jr. in view of Jaisawal (US 2023/0281173).
In claim 1, Edwards, Jr. discloses “A data query method, comprising:
obtaining a first query result of a first database in response to a first query request, the first database storing data of a first time window ((28) col. 5 lines 24-33, the user input may request, for instance, the average and standard deviation per time period. For each day, the query engine 110 may generate a data partition that stores the number of instantiated virtual machines. Over a first thirty day time period, annotated as “day one” through “day thirty,” the query engine 110 may generate a first average and a first standard deviation from the numbers stored in data partitions corresponding to the first time window. The first average and standard deviation may be stored as a first query result, (32) col. 6 lines 20-27, a first time window 220 (shown as “time window A”) may span a number “N” of time units 210 and may represent the rolling time window at a first point in time, the first time window 220 may span a thirty day time period (e.g., “N” is equal to thirty, such that time window 220 covers “day one” through “day thirty”));
obtaining a second query result of a second database when the first query result does not meet a preset check condition, the second database storing data of a second time window, a start time of the second time window being after a start time of the first time window ((28) col. 5 lines 33-49, A second thirty day period may have twenty nine days that overlap with the first time window and one non-overlapping day. The twenty-nine days may be annotated as “day two” through “day thirty.” The non-overlapping day may be annotated as “day thirty-one.” Accordingly for the second the next time period, the query engine 110 may incrementally generate a second average and a second standard deviation. For example, the query engine 110 may update the first query result by accounting for the contribution of “day thirty-one” (e.g., the non-overlapping day belonging to the second time window) and by removing the contribution of “day one” (e.g., the non-overlapping day belonging to the first time window). The former and latter contributions may correspond to the numbers stored in the data partitions of “day thirty-one” and “day one,” respectively. The query engine 110 may store the second average and standard deviation as a second query result, (33) col. 6 lines 28-43, A second time window 230 (shown as “time window B”) may span a same number “N” of the time units 210 (e.g., thirty days) and may represent the rolling time window at a second point in time. This number may be shifted in a direction 240 relative to the first time window 220. In addition, the shift may be by a certain number “M” of time units (e.g. shifted by one day, two days, etc.), where “M” may be less than “N.” Hence, each of the time windows 220 and 230 may have “M” non-overlapping time units 212 (e.g., one day, two days, etc.) and “N-M” overlapping time units 214 relative to the other time window); and
generating, by processing circuitry, a target query result based on at least one of the first query request or the second query result (FIG. 8, FIG. 9, col. 11 line 41-col. 12 line 6, A cold start job 820 may be generated to process data from the data partitions 810A-K and output a first query result 830 (show as “query result(1) in FIG. 8). A previous query result 910 (shown as query result (i)) may already exist and may correspond to a previous time window (e.g., time window (i)). A next time window (e.g., time window (i+1)) having some overlapping time units (and, equivalently, data partitions) with the previous time window. In addition, the two time windows may have non-overlapping time units (and, equivalently, non-overlapping data partitions 920). Accordingly, incremental data processing may be possible based on the previous query result 910 and data from the non-overlapping data partitions 920. An incremental job 930 may be generated to output a next query result 940 (shown as next query result (i+1)). The next query result 940 may be generated by updating the previous query result 910 according to the data from the non-overlapping data partitions 920)”.
Edwards, Jr. does not appear to explicitly disclose however, Jaisawal discloses “wherein an update frequency of the second database is higher than an update frequency of the first database ([0094] a modification count is computed that describes the number of times that updates of database fields values associated with the database field have detected that the database fields values have changed in a defined historical period (e.g., in the last year). For example, given a database that is associated with two database entities, the modification count for a first name database field may describe the number of times the first name of the first database entity has been detected to have changed plus the number of times the first name of the second database entity has been detected to have changed. In some embodiments, once modification counts are computed for all of the database fields defined by the schema of a database, then those modification counts are normalized across the database fields to generate the normalized modification counts. In some embodiments, the field modification frequency values are then determined based at least in part on the normalized modification counts. For example, the normalized modification counts computed for all of the database fields defined by the schema of a database may be separated into a set of predefined buckets (e.g., a “High” bucket, a “Low” bucket, and a “Medium” bucket), and then the field modification frequency value for each database field may be determined based at least in part on the bucket in which the normalized modification count for the database field falls)”.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards, Jr. and Jaisawal, the suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to facilitating efficient and effective execution of database management operations using distributed database update management techniques that utilize at least one of a field value temporal scoring machine learning model, total field utility measures, and distributed database update routines ([0002]).
In claim 2, Edwards, Jr. teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the first query result comprises: querying a plurality of sub-databases corresponding to the first database based on a plurality of first sub-queries, to obtain a plurality of first query sub-results; and merging the plurality of first query sub-results, to obtain the first query result (FIG. 9, col. 11 line 57-col. 12 line 6, A previous query result 910 (shown as query result (i)) may already exist and may correspond to a previous time window (e.g., time window (i)). A next time window (e.g., time window (i+1)) having some overlapping time units (and, equivalently, data partitions) with the previous time window. In addition, the two time windows may have non-overlapping time units (and, equivalently, non-overlapping data partitions 920). Accordingly, incremental data processing may be possible based on the previous query result 910 and data from the non-overlapping data partitions 920. An incremental job 930 may be generated to output a next query result 940 (shown as next query result (i+1)). The next query result 940 may be generated by updating the previous query result 910 according to the data from the non-overlapping data partitions 920).
In claim 9, Edwards, Jr. teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: updating, when incremental service content generated within the second time period is detected, a second service document in the second database according to the incremental service content generated within the second time period; comparing, when a preset update period is reached, the second service document with a first service document stored in the first database; and updating the first service document stored in the first database according to a result of the comparison (col. 12 line 61-col. 13 line 11, the computer system may generate a first query result for the first time window. If no previous query result exists, the computer system may run a cold start job to generate the first query result. The cold start job may be run according to one or more scheduling types, such as based on batching, mini-batching, or continuous schedules. Otherwise, the computer system may run an incremental job. Assuming a cold start, the computer system may generate the first query result by processing the data from the first set of partitions according to the data transformation derived from the user input. For instance, the first query result may include an aggregation of the data from the data partition. The aggregation may involve, for example, summation, subtraction, and/or other mathematical and statistical operations. Assuming an incremental data processing, the computer system may generate the first query result by updating the previous query result according to non-overlapping data partitions).
Claim 10 is essentially same as claim 1 except that it recites claimed invention as an apparatus and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim 16 is essentially same as claim 1 except that it recites claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected baseclaim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior arts of record teaches "wherein the plurality of first sub-queries comprises at least two of: i) a conversion of information included in the first query request into a first target query vector by vector conversion, and a query of a first sub-database according to the first target query vector, the first sub-database being obtained through the vector conversion on a first service document stored in the first database; ii) entity recognition in the first query request, to obtain an entity, and a query of a second sub-database by tag querying, the second sub-database being obtained by adding an entity tag to the first service document; or iii) a query of a third sub-database by index querying according to the first query request, the third sub-database being obtained based on a distributed index" as recited in claim 3.
9. Claims 4, 11 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected baseclaim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior arts of record teaches "wherein the second database includes a vector database and a document database, associations between the vector database and the document database being indicated in an index file; and the method further comprises: adding, to the document database, a second service document generated within the second time period; slicing the second service document to obtain a plurality of document slices; and storing a plurality of slice vectors corresponding to the plurality of document slices in the vector database" as recited in claims 4, 11 and 17.
Their dependent claims 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are also objected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim(s).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on 892 form.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169