DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 5 recite “…a second time associated with the database table,” without previously reciting a “first time”. Examiner recommends clarifying amendments to incorporate a “first time” before reciting a “second time”. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 inherit the deficiency due depending from claims 1 and 5 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidu et al (US-20150193504-A1) in view of Chen et al (US-20190213229-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Naidu teaches
1. A method comprising: receiving a first query request, wherein: the first query request comprises a FROM field and an AS-OF field, the FROM field identifies a database table ([0096] Suppose that Alice, an engineer at a web-search company, comes up with an idea for extracting new kinds of signals from web pages. She runs a MapReduce job that cranks through the input data that includes content from the web pages and produces a dataset containing the new signals, stored in billions of records in a distributed file system. To analyze the results of her experiment, she launches the system described in this document and executes several interactive commands:), and the AS-OF field identifies a second time associated with the database table (([0053] For example, working upwards from the location of the ‘Width’ value, each field is encountered a single time. Finding a second instance of each field requires traversing to the depths of the next, adjacent nested field (and possibly to further nestings). Thus, a ‘Video’ field may be encountered that does not include any ‘Resolution’ children (e.g., because the ‘Resolution’ field is optional or a repeating field). Thus, the ‘Video’ field has been encountered a second time and is thus the most recently repeated field. A repetition level of ‘1’ is assigned to the value.)
); receiving a fetched record from the database table in response to the second query request that comprises a value for the AS-OF field from the first query request ([0044], [0046] The fields of the schema (and thus the fields in the records) may be nested. In other words, some fields may be children of other fields, which may be referenced as the parent fields, grandparent fields, etc. In some examples, children nodes are those nodes in the schema that are found within a pair of opening and closing curly brackets immediately following the parent node. Other implementations for nesting, however, may be utilized (e.g., the use of a start tag for the field and an end tag for the field). Thus, except for the fields that are at the highest level (e.g., the fields that are not children of any other fields), each field may have a parent field.); upon confirming that a data cell for a column heading in the fetched record does not have valid data at a first time associated with the AS-OF field and does have valid data at a second time associated with the FETCHED field, adding a null value to the data cell in the fetched record ([0059] In some examples, the stored values are represented by strings. For example, instances of the ‘Width’ field may include the values ‘Small’ and ‘Medium.’ In some examples, the various string values may be a fixed length (e.g., a null value may be added to the beginning or end of the ‘Small’ value to make the string the same length as the ‘Medium’ value). In some examples, however, each stored string may include an identifier in a beginning portion of the string that identifies a length of the string. For example, the ‘small’ value may include an identifier that indicates that the string is five digits long (or a corresponding number of binary bits).); and providing the fetched record for the column heading as a query response to the first query request.( [0175] The query was executed using four configurations of the system, ranging from 1000 to 4000 nodes. The execution times are in FIG. 16. In each run, the total expended CPU time is nearly identical, at about 300K seconds, whereas the user-perceived time decreases near-linearly with the growing size of the system. This result suggests that a larger system can be just as effective in terms of resource usage as a smaller one, yet allows faster execution.)
Naidu does not explicitly teach based on the first query request, querying the database table with a second query request, wherein the second query request comprises a FETCHED field that is automatically added corresponding with receiving the first query request;
Chen teaches based on the first query request, querying the database table with a second query request, wherein the second query request comprises a FETCHED field that is automatically added corresponding with receiving the first query request; ([0042] In some embodiments, as further discussed below, the query generator 704 stores query results in the data store. In general, the query generator 704 adds an entry to the query history table for a database query before or after the database query is submitted to the server for execution or before or after the result is saved in the data store. The query generator 704 then removes an entry when the query cannot be executed successfully or when certain data retention rules are met. As such, the query history table can also include a link in each entry to the corresponding database query result in the data store. When a database query leads to a hierarchy of database queries, an entry is added to the query history table for each of the individual queries, which can then be referenced from the query history table separately.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Naidu to include based on the first query request, querying the database table with a second query request, wherein the second query request comprises a FETCHED field that is automatically added corresponding with receiving the first query request as taught by Chen. It would
be advantageous since to improve performance of the search system and reducing execution time of the query as seen in the cited sections of Chen.
Regarding claim 2, Naidu in view of Chen teaches The method of claim 1, Naidu further teaches wherein the first time associated with the FETCHED field is later than the second time associated with the AS-OF field. ([0053] For example, working upwards from the location of the ‘Width’ value, each field is encountered a single time. Finding a second instance of each field requires traversing to the depths of the next, adjacent nested field (and possibly to further nestings). Thus, a ‘Video’ field may be encountered that does not include any ‘Resolution’ children (e.g., because the ‘Resolution’ field is optional or a repeating field). Thus, the ‘Video’ field has been encountered a second time and is thus the most recently repeated field. A repetition level of ‘1’ is assigned to the value.)
Regarding claim 3, Naidu in view of Chen teaches The method of claim 1, Naidu further teaches wherein the value of the fetched record for the column heading is a null value. ([0059] In some examples, the stored values are represented by strings. For example, instances of the ‘Width’ field may include the values ‘Small’ and ‘Medium.’ In some examples, the various string values may be a fixed length (e.g., a null value may be added to the beginning or end of the ‘Small’ value to make the string the same length as the ‘Medium’ value). In some examples, however, each stored string may include an identifier in a beginning portion of the string that identifies a length of the string. For example, the ‘small’ value may include an identifier that indicates that the string is five digits long (or a corresponding number of binary bits).)
Regarding claim 4, Naidu in view of Chen teaches The method of claim 1, Naidu further teaches wherein the first query request further comprises:a WHERE field that identifies a condition to match with data cells in the fetched record([0058] A column of data for a particular field (e.g., the ‘Video.Resolution.Width’ field) may include the values for the field from multiple records, corresponding repetition and definition levels (acknowledging that some ‘missing’ values may have a repetition and a definition level), and header information. In some examples, the values are stored consecutively and adjacent. In other words, if a value for one ‘Video.Resolution.Width’ field was ‘700’ and the value for a next ‘Video.Resolution.Width’ field was ‘800,’ a portion of the column as stored in memory may read ‘700800,’ In this example, a header in the column may identify that the each value has a fixed width (e.g., a fixed binary representation to hold the numbers 700 and 800).), and a SELECT field that identifies a column heading in the database table.([0166]-[0168] -
Q3: SELECT domain, SUM(item.amount) FROM T2
WHERE domain CONTAINS ’.net’
GROUP BY domain
Claims 5-8 are rejected using similar reasoning seen in the rejection of claims 1-4 due to reciting similar limitations but directed towards a system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Naidu generally teaches a first data center, a second data center, and a third data center. The multiple data centers are configured to replicate a logical collection of data that comprises multiple logical partitions of data. The system comprises a first writing subsystem that is designated to write updates to a copy of a first logical partition of data that is stored by the first data center. The system comprises a second writing subsystem that is designated to write updates to a copy of a second logical partition of data that is stored by the second data center. The system comprises a third writing subsystem that is designated to write updates to a copy of a third logical partition of data that is stored by the third data center.
Chen generally teaches receiving a page display request, a system constructs a static, possibly nested query for retrieving all the data to be rendered for the page and stores the query result in a data store. For a future page display request, the system similarly constructs a query and determines whether the query can be resolved from the data store. If not, the system constructs a “diff query” to fetch only the missing data. In some embodiments, in response to a subsequent page update request, the system retrieves from the server all the data likely to be viewed or updated and renders the data changes corresponding to the requested update. The system then submits the data changes to the server and undoes the rendering of the data changes when the server fails to process the data changes.
The cited prior art when considered individually or in combination does not disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-1521. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM- 3:30 PM (ET).
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, ALEKSANDR KERZHNER can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/S.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165