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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (system), claim 15 recites a process (method), claim 20 recites a manufacture ( non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 15 and 20) recites “identify an OR operator of the query expression having a pair of OR operator operands; identify an AND operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands, wherein the AND operator has a first operand and a second operand; generate a first superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the first operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands; generate a second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands; generate a filtered superset-guaranteeing expression based on applying an additional AND operator having the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression as a pair of operands of the additional AND operator” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations recite Boolean algebraic algorithms which are mathematical algorithms, therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a query processing system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the query processing system to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes the processing module to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 15 and 20) recites “determine a query expression indicating a query for execution against a plurality of rows stored via a database system based on a nested ordering of a plurality of operators” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 15 and 20) recites “facilitate execution of the query against the plurality of rows stored via the database system by applying the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and by filtering at least one row from an output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression” which is merely indicating a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception (i.e., database systems).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
The courts have determined merely indicating a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 2 recites “generate a query operator execution flow for the query by selecting an ordered arrangement of a plurality of operators for execution to include: a plurality of index-based IO operators operable to implement the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression; and a first at least one additional operator serially after the plurality of index-based IO operators in the ordered arrangement of the plurality of operators implementing the additional AND operator to implement generation of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression; and a second at least one additional operator, serially after the first at least one additional operator, implementing filtering of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 3 recites “wherein facilitating execution of the query includes executing of the query operator execution flow by: applying the plurality of index-based IO operators to identify a plurality of first subsets of rows, collectively comprising a proper subset of the plurality of rows, based on index data stored for the plurality of rows, wherein the plurality of first subsets of rows collectively correspond to a proper superset of a true resultant of the filtered superset- guaranteeing expression; applying the first at least one additional operator to the plurality of first subsets of rows identify, based on applying the additional AND operator, a set intersection of the plurality of first subsets of rows as a second subset of the plurality of rows corresponding to a proper subset of a set union of the plurality of first subsets of rows, wherein the second subset of rows corresponds to the true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and further corresponds to a proper superset of a true resultant of the query expression; and applying the first at least one additional operator to the second subset of rows to identify a third subset of rows as a proper subset of the second subset of rows, wherein the third subset of rows corresponds to the true resultant of the query expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 4 recites “wherein facilitating execution of the query includes accessing index data for a plurality of rows based on the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 5 recites “perform a recursive process to: identify the OR operator; identify the AND operator; generate the first superset-guaranteeing expression; and generate the second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 6 recites “wherein performing the recursive process includes passing a Boolean variable while traversing an operator tree corresponding to the query expression, wherein the first superset- guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a first one of a pair of values, and wherein the first superset-guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a second one of a pair of values” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 7 recites “wherein generating the first superset-guaranteeing expression includes selecting only a left operand for each of a set of AND operates operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 8 recites “wherein generating the first superset-guaranteeing expression includes selecting only a right operand for each of a set of AND operates operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 9 recites “wherein generating the first superset-quarantining expression includes removing the AND operator from the first operand of the query expression, and wherein the first superset- guaranteeing expression includes no AND operators nested within any operands of any OR operators” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 10 recites “wherein generating the second superset-guaranteeing expression includes removing the AND operator from the first operand of the query expression, and wherein the second superset- guaranteeing expression includes no AND operators nested within any operands of any OR operators” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 11 recites “wherein a true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 12 recites “wherein a true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 13 recites “wherein a true resultant of the query expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression, and wherein the true resultant of the query expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 14 recites “wherein a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression is non-equivalent to a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 16 recites “generating a query operator execution flow for the query by selecting an ordered arrangement of a plurality of operators for execution to include: a plurality of index-based IO operators operable to implement the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression; and a first at least one additional operator serially after the plurality of index-based IO operators in the ordered arrangement of the plurality of operators implementing the additional AND operator to implement generation of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression; and a second at least one additional operator serially after the first at least one additional operator implementing filtering of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 17 recites “wherein facilitating execution of the query includes executing of the query operator execution flow by: applying the plurality of index-based I0 operators to identify a plurality of first subsets of rows, collectively comprising a proper subset of the plurality of rows, based on index data stored for the plurality of rows, wherein the plurality of first subsets of rows collectively correspond to a proper superset of a true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression; applying the first at least one additional operator to the plurality of first subsets of rows identify, based on applying the additional AND operator, a set intersection of the plurality of first subsets of rows as a second subset of the plurality of rows corresponding to a proper subset of a set union of the plurality of first subsets of rows, wherein the second subset of rows corresponds to the true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and further corresponds to a proper superset of a true resultant of the query expression; and applying the first at least one additional operator to the second subset of rows to identify a third subset of rows as a proper subset of the second subset of rows, wherein the third subset of rows corresponds to the true resultant of the query expression” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 18 recites “performing a recursive process to: identify the OR operator; identify the AND operator; generate the first superset-guaranteeing expression; and generate the second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 19 recites “wherein performing the recursive process includes passing a Boolean variable while traversing an operator tree corresponding to the query expression, wherein the first superset-guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a first one of a pair of values, and wherein the first superset-guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a second one of a pair of values” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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 1-2, 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20120096030 A1) hereafter Kim in view of Kanoh et al (US 5873077 A) hereafter Kanoh
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a query processing system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the query processing system to: determine a query expression indicating a query for execution against a plurality of rows stored via a database system based on a nested ordering of a plurality of operators; identify an OR operator of the query expression having a pair of OR operator operands; identify an AND operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands, wherein the AND operator has a first operand and a second operand; generate a first superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the first operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands; generate a second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands (Para 0045, Here, the first query and the second query may be combined using the AND operator since an intention of the user inputting the first query may be related to the second query, and the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator may be combined with the first query using the OR operator in order to prevent a problem in that the number of search results, provided when a search is performed by combining only the first query and the second query using the AND operator, may be less than the number of search result documents provided when the search is performed using only the first query); and facilitate execution of the query against the plurality of rows stored via the database system by applying the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and by filtering at least one row from an output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression (Para 0048, The searching unit 140 may generate the search results by performing a search using the third query generated by the query generating unit 130 and may provide the generated search results to the user through the user interface unit 110).
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach generate a filtered superset-guaranteeing expression based on applying an additional AND operator having the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression as a pair of operands of the additional AND operator.
In analogous art, Kanoh teaches generate a filtered superset-guaranteeing expression based on applying an additional AND operator having the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression as a pair of operands of the additional AND operator (Column 9 lines 46-50, the search query could be modified by requiring multiple search terms to be in each document instead of allowing documents with only some subset of those terms, e.g., changing any "OR" operators to "AND" operators). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of Kanoh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to filter search results, as taught by Kanoh (Column 9 lines 38-39 , if the search fails, gateway 102 could modify the search by adding or deleting keywords and resubmit the query).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the query processing system to: generate a query operator execution flow for the query by selecting an ordered arrangement of a plurality of operators for execution to include: a plurality of index-based IO operators operable to implement the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression; and a first at least one additional operator serially after the plurality of index-based IO operators in the ordered arrangement of the plurality of operators implementing the additional AND operator to implement generation of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression; and a second at least one additional operator, serially after the first at least one additional operator, implementing filtering of output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein facilitating execution of the query includes accessing index data for a plurality of rows based on the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression (Kanoh, column 9 lines 46-47, if a search produced too many documents, the search query could be modified by requiring multiple search terms to be in each document instead of allowing documents with only some subset of those terms). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of Kanoh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to filter search results, as taught by Kanoh (Column 9 lines 38-39, if the search fails, gateway 102 could modify the search by adding or deleting keywords and resubmit the query).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the query processing system to: perform a recursive process to: identify the OR operator; identify the AND operator; generate the first superset-guaranteeing expression; and generate the second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands (Kim, Para 0048, The searching unit 140 may generate the search results by performing a search using the third query generated by the query generating unit 130 and may provide the generated search results to the user through the user interface unit 110).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 5, wherein performing the recursive process includes passing a Boolean variable while traversing an operator tree corresponding to the query expression, wherein the first superset- guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a first one of a pair of values, and wherein the first superset-guaranteeing expression is generated based on the Boolean value being set to a second one of a pair of values (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein generating the first superset-guaranteeing expression includes selecting only a left operand for each of a set of AND operates operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein generating the first superset-guaranteeing expression includes selecting only a right operand for each of a set of AND operates operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein generating the first superset-guaranteeing includes removing the AND operator from the first operand of the query expression, and wherein the first superset- guaranteeing expression includes no AND operators nested within any operands of any OR operators (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein generating the second superset-guaranteeing expression includes removing the AND operator from the first operand of the query expression, and wherein the second superset- guaranteeing expression includes no AND operators nested within any operands of any OR operators (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein a true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein a true resultant of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein a true resultant of the query expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression, and wherein the true resultant of the query expression is a proper subset of a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Kanoh teaches the query processing system of claim 1, wherein a true resultant of the first superset-guaranteeing expression is non-equivalent to a true resultant of the second superset-guaranteeing expression (Kim, Para 0015, The third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using Boolean operators. For example, the third query may be generated by combining the first query and the second query using an AND operator, and combining the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator, with the first query using an OR operator).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a method comprising: determining a query expression indicating a query for execution based on a nested ordering of a plurality of operators; identifying an OR operator of the query expression having a pair of OR operator operands; identifying an AND operator nested within the one of the pair of OR operator operands, wherein the AND operator has a first operand and a second operand; generating a first superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the first operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands; generating a second superset-guaranteeing expression that includes only the second operand of the AND operator as the one of the pair of OR operator operands (Para 0045, Here, the first query and the second query may be combined using the AND operator since an intention of the user inputting the first query may be related to the second query, and the first query and the second query combined using the AND operator may be combined with the first query using the OR operator in order to prevent a problem in that the number of search results, provided when a search is performed by combining only the first query and the second query using the AND operator, may be less than the number of search result documents provided when the search is performed using only the first query).
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach generating a filtered superset-guaranteeing expression based on applying an additional AND operator having the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression as a pair of operands of the additional AND operator; and facilitating execution of the query by applying the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and by filtering at least one row from an output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression.
In analogous art, Kanoh teaches generating a filtered superset-guaranteeing expression based on applying an additional AND operator having the first superset-guaranteeing expression and the second superset-guaranteeing expression as a pair of operands of the additional AND operator; and facilitating execution of the query by applying the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression and by filtering at least one row from an output of the filtered superset-guaranteeing expression (Column 9 lines 46-50, the search query could be modified by requiring multiple search terms to be in each document instead of allowing documents with only some subset of those terms, e.g., changing any "OR" operators to "AND" operators). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of Kanoh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to filter search results, as taught by Kanoh (Column 9 lines 38-39, if the search fails, gateway 102 could modify the search by adding or deleting keywords and resubmit the query).
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 15, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights