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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on February 4th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16 and 20 have been amended and claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11 – 14 and 17 - 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16 and 20 -29 are currently pending.
Withdrawal of Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant’s extensive amendments to dependent claim 10 resulted in an exhaustive search that produced relevant prior art to teach applicant’s claimed invention. The allowable subject matter is withdrawn
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §101
4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 12, filed February 4th 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims and states a traversal of the rejections/objections without providing substantive arguments to buttress such traversal
Examiner respectfully reinstates the statutory rejection since the amendments do not overcome the statutory rejection as substantively explained further
35 U.S.C. §103
5. Applicant's arguments, see pp. 12, filed February 4th 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 9 and 11 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully
considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments are not taught by the cited art on record
Examiner respectfully agrees
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Klabe et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0406251) hereinafter Klabe and Bensberg et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20200175008) hereinafter Bensberg
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
6. 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16 and 20 - 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature , a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea.) without significantly more.
The claims are analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites, “a database system comprises pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes of pluralities of computing devices of a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resource:…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “identify a second query operator that processes data of the dataset, wherein the data of the dataset includes at least a portion of the first query operator output;
determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output includes a duplicate instance of a column of the set of columns, wherein the column of the duplicate instance is unaltered by the first query operator.”
The limitation of identifying a query operator and portions and characteristics of its output thereof, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually analyzing the script of a query syntax and observing that some of the columns have duplicates. These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Thus the step of ““identify a second query operator that processes data of the dataset, wherein the data of the dataset includes at least a portion of the first query operator output; determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output includes a duplicate instance of a column of the set of columns, wherein the column of the duplicate instance is unaltered by the first query operator.”” are observations and evaluations that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of, “a database system comprises pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes of pluralities of computing devices of a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resource; processing of a set of columns of a dataset to produce a first query operator output, wherein data of the set of column is referenced by a set of column references; execute the second query operator by: receiving a column reference of the set of column references for the column;
and processing the data of the dataset to produce a second query operator output, wherein the processing of the column is based on the column reference such that data of the column is not transmitted for the execution of the second query operator.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements recited using processing cores of computers ” are mere data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B
The additional elements of, ““a database system comprises pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes of pluralities of computing devices of a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resource; processing of a set of columns of a dataset to produce a first query operator output, wherein data of the set of column is referenced by a set of column references; execute the second query operator by: receiving a column reference of the set of column references for the column;
and processing the data of the dataset to produce a second query operator output, wherein the processing of the column is based on the column reference such that data of the column is not transmitted for the execution of the second query operator” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to George et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20250272289) that teaches in paragraph [0061], “Figs. 15A, 16, 17, 18A databases with core resources with sub-system and various output operations from such core processing [0066], [0103], [0110].”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “identify the second query operator that processes a first sub-set of the data of the dataset, wherein the first sub-set of the data of the dataset includes at least a portion of the first query operator output component; determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output component includes a duplicate instance of a column of the first sub-set of columns, wherein the column of the duplicate instance is unaltered by the first query operator;.” Evaluating data subsets and potential duplicates can be done mentally or using a paper and pen therefore such subsequent evaluation is an abstract idea.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
The additional steps of, “a first processing core resource of the set of processing core resources operable to: execute the first query operator by processing a first sub-set of the set of columns to produce a first query operator output component, wherein the first sub-set of the set of columns corresponds to a first set of rows of the dataset; execute the second query operator by: receiving a column reference of the first sub-set of column references for the column; and processing the first sub-set of the data of the dataset to produce a second query operator output component, wherein the processing of the column of the first sub-set of columns is based on the column reference such that data of the column of the sub-set of columns is not transmitted for the execution of the second query operator” are all mere data gathering steps and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. The courts have held, storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 2 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the second query operator comprises at least one of: at least one projection operator; at least one filtering operator; an input/output operator; a load operator; at least one join operator; or at least one aggregation operator.” Observing a second operator in a query and concluding it’s one of many types of operators is an evaluation and judgement that can be made mentally. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 6 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the dataset comprises: a plurality of tables, wherein a table of the plurality of tables includes one of: a plurality of rows; or a proper subset of the plurality of rows based on at least one filtering predicate of the first query operation being applied to the column.” Observing rows in a table is based on a filtering predicate or whether it contains all rows is conclusion based on an evaluation and judgement of the table’s contents that can be done mentally. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 6 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the column reference for the column comprises: the column identifier.” Observing a column reference corresponding to an identifier is conclusion based on an evaluation and judgement of the table’s contents that can be done mentally. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the set of processing core resources is further operable to: generate a postfix expression from the first query operator indicating a token for the column; and determine that the at least a portion of the first query operator output includes the duplicate instance of a column based on the being indicated in the postfix expression.” A postfix expression is way of writing mathematical expressions where the operator comes after its operands. A mathematical expression is an abstract idea and as such an abstract idea upon another abstract idea is an abstract idea. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") The additional elements are mere data gathering steps. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “A method comprising...” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of “A method comprising …:.” That is, other than reciting " A method comprising," nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends from independent claim 15 and corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 21 depends from independent claim 15 and corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 22 depends from independent claim 15 and corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 23 depends from independent claim 15 and corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 24 depends from independent claim 15 and corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly
Independent claim 20 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by at least one processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes the at least one processing module to...” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by at least one processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes the at least one processing module to …:.” That is, other than reciting " A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by at least one processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes the at least one processing module to," nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 depends from independent claim 20 and corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 26 depends from independent claim 20 and corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 27 depends from independent claim 20 and corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 28 depends from independent claim 20 and corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 29 depends from independent claim 20 and corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. 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.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klabe et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0406251) hereinafter Klabe.
Regarding claim 1 Klabe teaches a database system (Fig. 6 database system [0016]) comprises: pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes of pluralities of computing devices of a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resource is operable to:(multi-core systems [0069]) execute a first query operator (two special select operators [0027]) by processing of a set of columns of a dataset (Fig. 1 constraint columns in PublicBI datasets [0011]) to produce a first query operator output, (operator output estimates [0052]) wherein data of the set of column(Fig. 1 constraint columns in PublicBI datasets [0011]) is referenced by a set of column references; (join partners of different tables [0021])identify a second query operator (scan operator [0052]) that processes data of the dataset, (PublicBI datasets [0011]) wherein the data of the dataset (PublicBI datasets [0011]) includes at least a portion (use patches merge the Patchindex information 011-thefly to the output dataflow of the scan operator [0052]) of the first query operator output; (two special select operators [0027]) determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output (operator output estimates [0052]) includes a duplicate instance of a column of the set of columns, (Handling insert operations in the Patchindex includes determining which tuples have to be added to the existing patches. The uniqueness constraint may rely on a global view of the table. Inserting a single tuple might produce a collision with another tuple that was already in the table and had a unique value in the indexed coh1lllll before. To keep track of all occurrences of non-unique values to ensure correctness, for example, a join query may be performed after the insert operation, joining the inserted tuples with the actual table (including inserted values, as duplicates might also occur in the inserts) like shown in FIG. 5. [0060]) wherein the column of the duplicate instance is unaltered (joining the inserted tuples with the actual table (including inserted values, as duplicates might also occur in the inserts) like shown in FIG. 5. [0060]) by the first query operator; (two special select operators [0027]) execute the second query operator(A Patchlndex scan can be used or designed to split the dataflow of a scan operator . [0047]) by: receiving a column reference (join partner [0021])of the set of column references(join partners of different tables [0021]) for the column; (Here, the query plan 402 replaces the generic HashJoin operator with the significantly faster MergeJoin operator after excluding patches, if there is a Patchlndex on the join column and the join partner X is sorted on the join column. This is a frequent case for joins of fact tables with dimension tables, which are typically sorted on the dimension key [0049]) and processing the data of the dataset (PublicBI datasets [0011]) to produce a second query operator output, (into a flow of tuples fulfilling a constraint and a flow of patches (e.g., exceptions that may not fulfill the constraint). [0047]) wherein the processing of the column (table column [0021]) is based on the column reference (join partner [0021]) such that data of the column (Fig. 1 constraint columns in PublicBI datasets [0011]) is not transmitted for the execution (utilization of a distinct operator [0091]) of the second query (join query [0060])
Claims 15 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
9. 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.
10. 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klabe et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0406251) hereinafter Klabe in view of Bensberg et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20200175008) hereinafter Bensberg
Regarding claim 2 Klabe teaches the database system of claim 1,
Klabe further teaches comprises: a first processing core resource of the set of processing core resources operable to: (any one of the multi-core systems [0069]) includes a duplicate instance of a column of the first sub-set of columns, (Handling insert operations in the Patchindex includes determining which tuples have to be added to the existing patches. The uniqueness constraint may rely on a global view of the table. Inserting a single tuple might produce a collision with another tuple that was already in the table and had a unique value in the indexed coh1lllll before. To keep track of all occurrences of non-unique values to ensure correctness, for example, a join query may be performed after the insert operation, joining the inserted tuples with the actual table (including inserted values, as duplicates might also occur in the inserts) like shown in FIG. 5. [0060]) wherein the column of the duplicate instance is unaltered (joining the inserted tuples with the actual table (including inserted values, as duplicates might also occur in the inserts) like shown in FIG. 5. [0060]) by the first query operator; (two special select operators [0027]) is based on the column reference such that data of the column of the sub-set of columns is not transmitted (utilization of a distinct operator [0091]) for the execution of the second query operator(A Patchlndex scan can be used or designed to split the dataflow of a scan operator . [0047])
Klabe does not fully disclose execute the first query operator by processing a first sub-set of the set of columns to produce a first query operator output component, wherein the first sub-set of the set of columns corresponds to a first set of rows of the dataset; identify the second query operator that processes a first sub-set of the data of the dataset, wherein the first sub-set of the data of the dataset includes at least a portion of the first query operator output component; determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output component; execute the second query operator by: receiving a column reference of the first sub-set of column references for the column; and processing the first sub-set of the data of the dataset to produce a second query operator output component, wherein the processing of the column of the first sub-set of columns
Bensberg teaches execute the first query operator (ABS., first query operator) (Fig. 11, (1102) first query operator [0073]) by processing a first sub-set of the set of columns to produce (This operator may include a combination of operators. For example, this operator may be seeking mobile telephone usage data for users located in both countries Germany and France, e.g., WHERE country ='DE' OR country ='FR'. Such filtering mechanism may generate larger intermediate result 2 506b as compared to intermediate results 2 306b and 406b shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, respectively. Such "broadening" of the scope of the operators may allow querying, obtaining and manipulating ( e.g., applying split operators to divide obtained data into smaller subsets) larger amounts of data and thus, generating larger results data poo [0044]) a first query operator output component, ( A first result data (e.g., intermediate result 4) [0073]) wherein the first sub-set of the set of columns (e.g., WHERE country ='DE' OR country ='FR'. [0042], [0044]) corresponds to a first set of rows ((i.e., seeking to generate mobile telephone data from Germany); (i.e., seeking to generate mobile telephone data from France), []) of the dataset; (a first data stored in at least one first storage location. (e.g., source 302, source 402, a table, a database, etc.). [0073]) such as “dataset” identify the second query operator (ABS., second query operator) (Fig. 11, (1108) second query operator [0073]) that processes a first sub-set of the data(subset of data (e.g., a column of a table) [0029]) of the dataset, (a first data stored in at least one first storage location. (e.g., source 302, source 402, a table, a database, etc.). [0073]) such as “dataset” wherein the first sub-set of the data (subset of data (e.g., a column of a table) [0029])of the dataset(a first data stored in at least one first storage location. (e.g., source 302, source 402, a table, a database, etc.). [0073]) such as “dataset” includes at least a portion ( Operator 6 528 that may be applied to the intermediate
5 results as well as reuse intermediate results 4 510. However, the operator 6 528 may reduce the result pool in intermediate result 4 510 by, for example, adding a filter
operator, e.g., filter: WHERE country ='FR' , which will narrow down the final results 540 to data in France only [0047]) of the first query operator output component; ( A first result data (e.g., intermediate result 4) [0073]) determine whether the at least a portion ( Operator 6 528 that may be applied to the intermediate results as well as reuse intermediate results 4 510. However, the operator 6 528 may reduce the result pool in intermediate result 4 510 by, for example, adding a filter operator, e.g., filter: WHERE country ='FR' , which will narrow down the final results 540 to data in France only [0047]) of the first query operator output component ( A first result data (e.g., intermediate result 4) [0073]) execute (execute [0050]) the second query operator (ABS., second query operator) (Fig. 11, (1108) second query operator [0073]) by: receiving a column reference (WHERE country = ‘FR’ [0047]) of the first sub-set of column references for the column; (WHERE country='DE'; WHERE country = ‘FR’ [0042]) and processing the first sub-set of the data (subset of data (e.g., a column of a table) [0029])of the dataset (a first data stored in at least one first storage location. (e.g., source 302, source 402, a table, a database, etc.). [0073]) such as “dataset” to produce a second query operator output component, (generate final results of the query 420, [0041]) wherein the processing of the column (WHERE country = ‘FR’ [0047]) of the first sub-set of columns (WHERE country='DE'; WHERE country = ‘FR’ [0042])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klabe to incorporate the teachings of Bensberg wherein execute the first query operator by processing a first sub-set of the set of columns to produce a first query operator output component, wherein the first sub-set of the set of columns corresponds to a first set of rows of the dataset; identify the second query operator that processes a first sub-set of the data of the dataset, wherein the first sub-set of the data of the dataset includes at least a portion of the first query operator output component; determine whether the at least a portion of the first query operator output component; execute the second query operator by: receiving a column reference of the first sub-set of column references for the column; and processing the first sub-set of the data of the dataset to produce a second query operator output component, wherein the processing of the column of the first sub-set of columns. By doing so generating a first result data by applying a first query operator to a first data stored in a first storage location, providing the first result data to a second query execution plan for execution of a second query, executing the second query on a second data stored in a second storage location in accordance with the second query execution plan, the second query execution plan including a second query operator, and generating, based on the execution of the second query, a second result data in accordance with the second query execution plan and by at least applying the second query operator to at least the provided first result data. Bensberg [0003]
Claims 16 and 25 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 5 Klabe in view of Bensberg teaches the database system of claim 2,
Klabe as modified does not fully, wherein the at least one second operator includes at least one of: at least one projection operator; at least one filtering operator; an input/output operator; a load operator; at least one join operator; or at least one aggregation operator.
Bensberg teaches wherein the at least one second operator includes at least one of: at least one projection operator; at least one filtering operator; (filter operator [0047]) an input/output operator; a load operator; at least one join operator; or at least one aggregation operator.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klabe to incorporate the teachings of Bensberg wherein the at least one second operator includes at least one of: at least one projection operator; at least one filtering operator; an input/output operator; a load operator; at least one join operator; or at least one aggregation operator. By doing so operator 6 528 that may be applied to the intermediate
5 results. Bensberg [0047]
Claims 21 and 26 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 7 Klabe in view of Bensberg teaches the database system of claim 1,
Klabe as modified further teaches wherein the dataset (ABS., dataset) (Fig. 7 (702) dataset [0083])comprises: a plurality of tables, wherein a table of the plurality of tables includes one of: a plurality of rows; (This data includes relations or
tables comprising rows and columns of user data [0071]) or a proper subset of the plurality of rows based on at least one filtering predicate of the first query operation being applied to the column.
Claims 22 and 27 correspond to claim 7 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 8 Klabe in view of Bensberg teaches the database system of claim 1,
Klabe as modified does not fully disclose wherein the column reference for the column (join partner [0021])comprises: the column identifier (an index is maintained for the join partner [0021])
Claims 23 and 28 correspond to claim 8 and are rejected accordingly
Claims 10, 24 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klabe et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0406251) hereinafter Klabe in view of Bensberg et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20200175008) hereinafter Bensberg and in further view of Jian et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2023/0367785)
Regarding claim 10 Klabe in view of Bensberg teaches the database system of claim 1,
Klabe as modified further teaches wherein the set of processing core resources is further operable to: and determine that the at least a portion of the first query operator output includes the duplicate instance of a column (Handling insert operations in the Patchindex includes determining which tuples have to be added to the existing patches. The uniqueness constraint may rely on a global view of the table. Inserting a single tuple might produce a collision with another tuple that was already in the table and had a unique value in the indexed coh1lllll before. To keep track of all occurrences of non-unique values to ensure correctness, for example, a join query may be performed after the insert operation, joining the inserted tuples with the actual table (including inserted values, as duplicates might also occur in the inserts) like shown in FIG. 5. [0060]
Klabe as modified does not fully disclose generate a postfix expression from the first query operator indicating a token for a column;
Jian teaches generate a postfix expression from the first query operator (The FDS convertor 304 may convert the infix order associated with the constant values, node operators, pre-defined functions in the original YANG data models to postfix orders and save the operators/operands in postfix order in FDS binary fonnat ( e.g., xy+ [0087].) indicating a token for a column; (In certain nonlimiting embodiments, the FDS convertor 304 may create 2 types of tokens, one may be an operator, and another may be an operand. The operators may match with the original operator in the original YANG data models but with the predefined IDs. The predefined operator may act as a special
operator as well. [0087])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klabe in view of Bensberg to incorporate the teachings of Jian wherein generate a postfix expression from the first query operator indicating a token for a column. By doing so The conversion of the infix order to the postfix order expressions may allow the ease of
formula loading and direct calculation. Jian [0087]
Claims 24 and 29 correspond to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire
THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is
filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action
is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory
period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory
action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be
calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this
final action.
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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. 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 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.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights