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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable by Holenstein et al (“Holenstein” US 10,671,641 B1), published on June 02, 2020.
As to claim 1, Holenstein teaches “receiving a data block comprising a plurality of rows of data, the plurality of rows of data comprising a first row data and a second row of data, wherein the first row of data comprise attributes different from the second row of data” in figure 10, col. 9: 21-25 (“…The columns cid and price are grouped for the month of June and for the month of July. The columns pid and quantity likewise are grouped for the months of June and July…”. Group of column cid and column price forms a set of rows with two attributes of cid and price. Group of column pid and column quantity forms a set of rows with two attributes of pid and quantity).
Holenstein teaches “defining a plurality of schemas that represent attributes of the plurality of rows of data, including defining a first schema that represents every attribute in the first row of data”in figure 10, col. 9: 21-25 (cid and price is a schema that represents attributes of the plurality of rows of data).
Holenstein teaches “and defining at least a second schema, different from the first schema, that represents every attribute in the second row of data, wherein the first schema represents attributes different from attributes represented by the second schema” in figure 10, col. 9: 21-25 (pid and quantity is a schema that represents every attribute in the second row of data, wherein the first schema represents attributes different from attributes represented by the second schema).
Holenstein teaches “identifying groups of rows of data among the plurality of rows of data using the plurality of schemas, including identifying a first group of rows having attributes that are represented by the first schema and identifying at least a second group of rows having attributes that are represented by the second schema” in figure 10, col. 9: 21-25 (rows of record associated with columns cid and price are a first group of rows having attributes that are represented by the first schema. rows of record associated with columns pid and quantity are a second group of rows having attributes that are represented by the second schema).
Holenstein teaches “storing each of the identified group of rows in column-oriented format, including storing the first group of rows in column-oriented format and storing the second group of rows in column-oriented format” in figure 11, col. 9: 32-38 (“… Container 1a (1) contains the cid and price data for June. Container 1b (2) contains the pid and quantity data for June. Container 2a (3) contains the cid and price data for July. Container 2b (4) contains the pid and quantity data for July. The month with which each container is associated is contained in a container header…”. Noting that container 1a stores group of rows (of cid and price) in the month of June as to storing each of the identified group of rows in column-oriented format. Container 1b stores group of rows (of pid and quantity) in the month of June as to storing the second group of rows in column-oriented format).
As to claim 8, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As to claim 2, Holenstein teaches “wherein storing the first group of rows in column-oriented format includes storing the values of each attribute in the first group in a corresponding data row, wherein storing the second group of rows in column-oriented format includes storing the values of each attribute in the second group in a corresponding data row” in figure 11, col. 9: 32-38 (container 1a stored cid and price in a column format of the month of June. Container 1b stored pid and quantity in a column format of the month of June).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
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 3-7, 10-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holenstein et al (“Holenstein” US 10,671,641 B1), published on June 02, 2020 in view of Arye et al (“Arye” US 2021/0034587 A1), published on February 04, 2021.
As to claim 3, it appears Holenstein does not explicitly teach “wherein storing the first group of rows in column-oriented format includes encoding values of at least one attribute in the first group according to a corresponding encoding technique”.
However, Arye teaches “wherein storing the first group of rows in column-oriented format includes encoding values of at least one attribute in the first group according to a corresponding encoding technique” in paragraphs [0116-0118] (dictionary encoding technique).
Holenstein and Arye are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to storing row of data, disclosed by Holenstein, including “wherein storing the first group of rows in column-oriented format includes encoding values of at least one attribute in the first group according to a corresponding encoding technique”, as suggested by Arye in order to type specifically compress data in a database system (see Arye paragraphs [0116-0118]).
Arye teaches “wherein storing the second group of rows in column-oriented format includes encoding values of at least one attribute in the second group according to a corresponding encoding technique” in paragraphs [0116-0118] (dictionary encoding technique).
As to claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
As to claim 4, Arye teaches “wherein an encoding technique is based on a data type of the values being encoded” in par. 0019 (data compression policies are selected based on the data type of the values of the set of values).
As to claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As to claim 5, Arye teaches “further comprising using a run-length encoding technique when the values are numeric values” in par. 0114 (“… Often repeated values are run-length encoded, where a sequence of repeating values (such as [3, 3, 3, 3, 3]) are replaced with a pair containing the value…”).
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
As to claim 6, Arye teaches “further comprising using a dictionary encoding technique when the values are enumerated values” in paragraphs [0116-0118].
As to claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
As to claim 7, Arye teaches “further comprising using a delta encoding technique when the values are timestamp values” in par. 0114.
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 5-7.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s argument A on page 7, applicant argues “In Holenstein's Sales table (FIG. 9), all rows share identical attributes. The table does not contain rows with different attributes. Similarly, FIG. 10 displays six distinct groups, each being a subset of the Sales table's rows and columns. Importantly, every row within a given group possesses the same attributes. FIG. 10 illustrates multiple data blocks rather than a single received data block. Nevertheless, even if a group in FIG. 10 were to represent a received data block, no individual group contains rows with different attribute”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. Rows of data in a data block, as described in the claim language, don’t have to be corresponding to rows of data in the table (in Holenstein’s). In fact, rows of data in a data block can be a set of a plurality of sub-sets of data. Each sub-set of data can be formed by any different number of attributes.
Regarding applicant’s argument B on page 7, applicant argues “Holenstein's queries, Q1 and Q2, are not schemas as understood by persons of ordinary skill in the database arts; Q1 and Q2 are queries. In any case, Q1 and Q2 do not constitute first and second schemas for any single group in FIG. 10. Q1 pertains to a group with customer ID and price columns, while Q2 relates to a different group containing product ID and quantity columns. Although Q1 and Q2 involve distinct attributes, they do not represent first and second schemas with different attributes applied to the same data block”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. First of all, even-though queries Q1, Q2 are not data schemas, the results of query Q1 and Q2 correspond to data schema. Figure 10 shows predicates of interest in the Sales table, and data in the Sales table are organized within data blocks.
Regarding applicant’s argument C on page 8, applicant argues “Holenstein's queries, Q1 and Q2, are applied to the Sales table in FIG. 9 to create groups. Specifically, Q1 generates a group from the Sales table consisting only of the customer ID and price columns, the rows in this group do not include all attributes from the original Sales table rows. Similarly, Q2 generates another group, comprising rows that only contain the product ID and quantity columns; these rows also do not retain all original Sales table attributes”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. It is not required by the claim language that rows of data as a result of Q1 and Q2 to include all attributes from the Sales table.
Regarding applicant’s argument D on page 8, applicant argues “Holenstein explicitly points out at col. 9, lines 25-30 that their groups are neither column-oriented nor row-oriented”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. Per Holenstein’s col. 9: 28-29, Holenstein discloses “the data is organized in a rectangular schema that is both row-oriented and column-oriented. This is the hybrid Teradata Columnar database”. Therefore, Holenstein suggests for the hybrid Teradata Columnar database in which a group of rows can be stored in a column format. That is required by claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
. Fender et al (US 20210157779 A1)
. Li et al (US 2020/0409925 A1)
. Seifert et al (US 10719450 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is 571-272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571)-270-1698. 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164