DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on January 16, 2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 10 state that a predefined query is generated. Then the claims state that, “predefined queries including a query including an insert command, a query including a select command, and a query including a delete command.” However, further limitations describe what happens when only one of the commands is present in the query (i.e. “in the case where a query… including a select command,” “in the case where a query… including an insert command,” etc).
As such, it is unclear if multiple predefined queries are generated such as an insert query, a delete query and a select query. Or whether there is only one predefined query that is generated.
Claims 2, 9 and 11 state “wherein the query generation unit generates a query in which query identification information generated on the basis of a given argument is added as a comment.”
However, it is unclear what query identification information means. The instant specification also does shed light on what query identification information means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 10 recite abstract subject matter directed towards database operations. Specifically, the Claims recite:
a step of generating a predefined query that acts on a single row in a single table of a prescribed relational database, predefined queries including a query including an insert command, a query including a select command, and a query including a delete command – Writing a query is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
a step of executing the query generated in the generating step – Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
a step of storing or deleting a cache object based on a query execution result obtained in the executing step as a result of executing the query – Storing data, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
wherein:
the query generated in the generating step includes cache identification information for identifying a cache object – Identifying a stored object is something that a person can do in the mind.
the storing step, in the case where a query execution result has been obtained in the executing step as a result of executing the query including the insert command or the query including the select command, includes storing the cache object based on the query execution result in a prescribed memory in association with the cache identification information included in the query executed - Storing data, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
the deleting step, in the case where a query execution result has been obtained in the executing step as a result of executing the query including the delete command, includes deleting the cache object associated with the cache identification information included in the query including the delete command from the prescribed memory - Deleting data, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d). Also, a person can delete information based at least on a desire to remove something from a drawn table.
the executing step, in the case of executing the query including the select command, in the case where the cache identification information included in the query is stored in the prescribed memory, includes obtaining the cache object associated with the cache identification information from the prescribed memory without executing the query on the prescribed relational database – Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such an electronic device, a processor, memory, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The rest of the Dependent Claims, 2-7, 9 and 11-12, further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, the Claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. Rather, the Claims describe a system (and server as in Claims 8-9), executing different software units, without any hardware to execute the units, which is considered non-statutory.
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 1, 4-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0173758) in view of Aylett et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0286815).
Claims 1, 8 and 10: Barsness discloses a system, a server and a method comprising:
a query generation unit that generates a predefined query that acts on a single row in a single table of a prescribed relational database, predefined queries including a query including an insert command, a query including a select command, and a query including a delete command [0021]. [See at least predefined queries that “can be used to select, insert, delete, update…”]
a query execution unit that executes the query generated by the query generation unit [0021].
Barsness alone does not explicitly disclose an object management unit that manages a cache object based on a query execution result obtained by the query execution unit as a result of executing the query, wherein: the query generation unit generates a query including cache identification information for identifying a cache object.
However, Aylett [0164-0166] discloses using a cache key in a query to identify a cached object.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Barsness with Aylett. One would have been motivated to do so in order to check if an object exists in the cache and retrieve it.
Barsness as modified further discloses:
in the case where the query execution unit has obtained a query execution result as a result of executing the query including the insert command or the query including the select command, the object management unit stores the cache object based on the query execution result in a prescribed memory in association with the cache identification information included in the query executed, whereas in the case where the query execution unit has obtained a query execution result as a result of executing the query including the delete command, the object management unit deletes the cache object associated with the cache identification information included in the query including the delete command from the prescribed memory [0021, 0033]. [See at least using a select command to retrieve and store the result. Also, see Aylett [0164-0166] for caching a result of the query.]
in the case of executing the query including the select command, the query execution unit, in the case where the cache identification information included in the query is stored in the prescribed memory, obtains the cache object associated with the cache identification information from the prescribed memory without executing the query on the prescribed relational database [0021]. [See at least using a select command to retrieve data. Also, see Aylett [0164].]
Claim 4: Barsness as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, and Barsness further discloses wherein: the query generated by the query generation unit is an SQL query; and the query generation unit generates a query including an INSERT command, a SELECT command, a SELECT FOR UPDATE command, an UPDATE command, or a DELETE command [0021].
Claim 5: Barsness as modified discloses the system of Claim 4 above, and Barsness further discloses wherein in the case where the query execution unit has obtained a query execution result as a result of executing a query including the UPDATE command, the object management unit deletes the cache object associated with the cache identification information included in the query from the prescribed memory [0021].
Claim 6: Barsness as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, and Barsness further discloses wherein the prescribed memory is a memory or SSD storage of a cache server included in the system [0022].
Claim 7: Barsness as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, and Barsness [0064] in view of Aylett [0071] includes a server and a relational database. But, the cited art does not explicitly disclose wherein: the system includes a game server; and the prescribed relational database is a relational database that stores information relating to a game.
However, using servers and database for a particular use, such as gaming, does not change the functionality of the servers or databases as cited in the art.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Barsness and Aylett to include a particular intended use of gaming for their servers and databases. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide functionality for an intended use of a user.
Claim 12: Barsness as modified discloses the method of Claim 10 above, and Barsness further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the steps of a method according to claim 10 [0063].
Claims 2-3, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0173758) in view of Aylett et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0286815) and further in view of Borra et al (US Patent 11,403,293).
Claims 2, 9 and 11: Barsness as modified discloses the system, the server and the method of Claims 1, 8 and 10 above, but Barsness alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the query generation unit generates a query in which query identification information generated on the basis of a given argument is added as a comment.
However, Borra (Col 4 ln 29-39) discloses adding a comment to a query.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Barsness with Borra. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify the query command, “the “comment” command adds a comment for user specified identification purposes.”
Claim 3: Barsness as modified discloses the system of Claim 2 above, and Barsness further discloses wherein in the case where the query execution unit has obtained a query execution result as a result of executing the query including the insert command or the query including the select command, the object management unit does not store the cache object based on the query execution result in the prescribed memory in the case where the given argument satisfies a prescribed condition [0021].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hullick (2012/0089987) describes at least looking up information in a cache using at least identifiers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163