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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19055801 filed 02/18/2025 is a Continuation of 18403002 , filed 01/03/2024 ,now U.S. Patent # 12271381
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482485 , filed 01/31/2023
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482497 , filed 01/31/2023
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482504 , filed 01/31/2023
Child data
None
Last updated by opsgusr on 02/18/2025 12:57:57
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to the same subject matter generating, based on query, a request for rows in accordance with an object storage communication protocol, wherein the request for row indicates filtering parameter data, sending the query indicating the filtering parameter to an object storage system in accordance with the object storage communication protocol, wherein the object storage system stores a plurality of records via a plurality of objects in memory resources of the object storage system and further stores configuration data and mapping storage of the plurality of records of a plurality of datasets via the plurality of objects; wherein the object storage system processes the request to generate a filtered row set via processing the request rows based on: executing a record identification pipeline for execution based on applying the filtering parameter data and the configuration data, wherein the proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data is identified based on executing the second identification pipeline by accessing at least one object of the plurality of objects; receiving a response from the object storage system in accordance with the object storage communication protocol indicating the filtered row set generated by the object storage system as the proper subset of the plurality of records stored by the storage object system; executing the second at least on operator of the query operator execution flow via a plurality of parallelized nodes of a query execution plan: processing the filtered row set indicated in the response in accordance with the second at least one operator to produce a query resultant based on multiple nodes of the plurality of parallelized nodes each processing corresponding subsets of the filtered row set in parallel with other ones of multiple node. The differences are, the instant application also include generating a request to store the new plurality of records of records in accordance with the object storage communication protocol indicating the new plurality of records and sending the request to store new plurality of records to the object storage system, wherein the object storage system stores the new plurality of records in at least one second object based on processing the request to store the new plurality of records, while the 381 includes determining a query for execution and generating a query operator execution flow for the query that includes a first at least one operator serially before a second at least one operator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the 381 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dageville et al (Patent No. US 10,534,792 B2) in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0086091 A1).
As to claim 1, Dageville discloses a data processing system comprising:
at least one processor (one processor) (col. 10, lines 62-63); and
at least one memory storing operational instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (processor 602 include one or more processor or controller that execute instruction…) (col. 10, lines 65-67 to col. 11, lines 1-4), cause the at least one processor to perform operations that include:
generating, based on a query, a request for rows in accordance with an object storage communication protocol, wherein the request for rows indicates filtering parameter data (first set of operator) (claim 1);
sending the request for rows indicating the filtering parameter data to an object storage system, in accordance with the object storage communication protocol (data storage devices 316-320 in storage platform 314 are implement via one or more data communication network … communication protocol…) (col. 7, lines 28-38),
wherein the object storage system processes the request to generate a filtered row set via processing the request for rows based on: executing a record identification pipeline based on applying the filtering parameter data and the configuration data, wherein a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data is identified based on executing the record identification pipeline by accessing at least one first object of the plurality of objects (generate an intermediate result of a query, the intermediate result comprising a plurality of rows of database data) (claim 1);
receiving row data in a response from the object storage system in accordance with the object storage communication protocol denoting the filtered row set as a proper subset of the plurality of records stored by the object storage system based on the object storage system processing the request for rows (generate an intermediate result of a query, the intermediate result comprising a plurality of rows of database data) (claim 1) (the returned rows as the proper subset);
processing, based on the query, the row data for the filtered row set via a plurality of parallelized nodes of a query execution plan to generate a query resultant that includes a new plurality of records based on: processing the filtered row set to produce the query resultant based on multiple nodes of the plurality of parallelized nodes each processing corresponding subsets of the filtered row set in parallel with other ones of the multiple nodes (pushing, during the execution of the query plan, the plurality of rows of database data to a plurality of secondary operators in the query plan for concurrent processing…) (claim 1);
generating a request to store the new plurality of records in accordance with the object storage communication protocol indicating the new plurality of records (storing final result to disk storage within storage platform that is separate from execution platform) (claim 1); and
sending the request to store the new plurality of records to the object storage system, wherein the object storage system stores the new plurality of records in at least one second object based on processing the request to store the new plurality of records (storing final result to disk storage within storage platform that is separate from execution platform) (claim 1) (the final result includes new plurality of records).
Dageville does not explicitly discloses wherein the object storage system stores a plurality of records via a plurality of objects in memory resources of the object storage system and further stores configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of a plurality of datasets via the plurality of objects. However, Xu discloses wherein the object storage system stores a plurality of records via a plurality of objects in memory resources of the object storage system and further stores configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of a plurality of datasets via the plurality of objects (given an object record format (which may be the non-specific format or the fixed format) of an object, the storage engine 210 may adaptively determine or optimize a size of a data structure (such as mapping table, for example) that is used for storing mapping information of records of the object in the system memory (such as memory 208) associated with the storage engine 210 (or the storage system 102) by referring to a format value or index (i.e., which object record format) of the object that rather than storing exact physical sizes of records of the object (or how many data sectors the object or each record of the object…) (paragraph 0048). This suggest the claim language wherein the object storage system stores a plurality of records via a plurality of objects in memory resources of the object storage system and further stores configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of a plurality of datasets via the plurality of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effect filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Dageville to include wherein the object storage system stores a plurality of records via a plurality of objects in memory resources of the object storage system and further stores configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of a plurality of datasets via the plurality of objects as disclosed by Xu in order to retrieve data.
As to claim 2, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the object storage system generates the filtered row set via processing the request for rows further based on accessing a first index structure of the set of index structures stored in memory resources accessible by the object storage system (storing the intermedia result in local cache) (claim 1).
As to claim 3, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 2, wherein at least one of: a second plurality of objects stored by the object storage system store the set of index structures indexing the plurality of records, wherein accessing the first index structure includes accessing at least one of the second plurality of objects (object storage system) (col. 7, line 23) (object storage system include index storing records for retrieval); or the set of index structures are stored via non-object storage memory resources accessible by the object storage system, and wherein accessing the first index structure includes accessing the non-object storage memory resources.
As to claim 4, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the filtered row set indicates row storage location data for a first filtered row set that is a first proper subset of the plurality of records stored by the object storage system based on the object storage system processing the request, and wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform further operations that include:
determining a second filtered row set as a second proper subset of the first filtered row set based on executing at least one query operator (plurality of operators… plurality of rows…) (claim 1) (second of one or more operators retrieve second filtered row set);
Dageville does not explicitly disclose sending a second request for field values that indicates the row storage location data for the second filtered row set in accordance with the object storage communication protocol; and sending a second response indicating the field values of the second filtered row set based on the request for field values. However,
As to claim 5, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform further operations that include:
sending a second request indicating second filtering parameter data in accordance with the object storage communication protocol (operators) (claim 1) (one of the other operator is second request operator);
receiving a second response indicating a second filtered row set identifying a second proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the second filtering parameter data, wherein the second proper subset of the plurality of records includes at least one row of the new plurality of records (second result set from on other operator) (claim 1); and
processing the second filtered row set to produce a second query resultant (claim 1).
As to claim 6, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1 excepting for wherein the object storage system stores the plurality of objects via memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service, wherein the memory resources store the plurality of objects via a flat storage structure, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes a data portion, an object metadata portion, and a globally unique identifier. Xu discloses wherein the object storage system stores the plurality of objects via memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service, wherein the memory resources store the plurality of objects via a flat storage structure, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes a data portion, an object metadata portion, and a globally unique identifier (which may be the non-specific format or the fixed format) of an object, the storage engine 210 may adaptively determine or optimize a size of a data structure (such as mapping table, for example) that is used for storing mapping information of records of the object in the system memory (such as memory 208) associated with the storage engine 210 (or the storage system 102) by referring to a format value or index (i.e., which object record format) of the object that rather than storing exact physical sizes of records of the object (or how many data sectors the object or each record of the object…) (paragraph 0048). This suggest the claim language wherein the object storage system stores the plurality of objects via memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service, wherein the memory resources store the plurality of objects via a flat storage structure, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes a data portion, an object metadata portion, and a globally unique identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effect filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Dageville to include wherein the object storage system stores the plurality of objects via memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service, wherein the memory resources store the plurality of objects via a flat storage structure, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes a data portion, an object metadata portion, and a globally unique identifierof the object that rather than storing exact physical sizes of records of the object as disclosed by Xu in order to retrieve data.
As to claim 7, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the filtering parameter data includes at least one record-based filtering parameter applied to objects, and wherein the filtered row set indicates ones of the plurality of records satisfying the at least one record-based filtering parameter (the query plan comprises plurality of plurality operator…) (claim 1); or the filtering parameter data includes at least one object-based filtering parameter applied to objects, and wherein the filtered row set indicates ones of the plurality of records included in objects satisfying the at least one object-based filtering parameter.
As to claim 11, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the request to store the new plurality of records is generated and sent to the object storage system based on the query indicating a request to store the query resultant (storing a final result to disk storage withing a storage platform) (claim 1).
As to claim 12, Dageville the data processing system of claim 11, wherein the query is determined based on processing a query request in accordance with the Structured Query Language (SQL) (SQL compiler) (col. 8, lines 16-27), and wherein the request to store the query resultant is indicated in the query as one of: a Create Table as Select statement or an Insert request (SQL statement can perform all what being claimed) (storing the final set) (claim 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Dageville discloses an object storage system comprising: at least one processor (one processor) (col. 10, lines 62-63); and at least one memory storing operational instructions (processor 602 include one or more processor or controller that execute instruction…) (col. 10, lines 65-67 to col. 11, lines 1-4)that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform. Dageville does not explicitly disclose storing a plurality records via a plurality objects in memory resource and storing configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of the plurality of dataset via the plurality of objects (which may be the non-specific format or the fixed format) of an object, the storage engine 210 may adaptively determine or optimize a size of a data structure (such as mapping table, for example) that is used for storing mapping information of records of the object in the system memory (such as memory 208) associated with the storage engine 210 (or the storage system 102) by referring to a format value or index (i.e., which object record format) of the object that rather than storing exact physical sizes of records of the object (or how many data sectors the object or each record of the object…) (paragraph 0048). This suggest the claim language storing a plurality records via a plurality objects in memory resource and storing configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of the plurality of dataset via the plurality of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effect filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Dageville to include storing a plurality records via a plurality objects in memory resource and storing configuration data mapping storage of the plurality of records of the plurality of dataset via the plurality of objects as disclosed by Xu in order to retrieve data.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claims 3 and 4.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to clam 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 20, Dageville discloses a method (method) (col. 3, line 61).
4. Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dageville et al (Patent No. US 10,534,792 B2) in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0086091 A1) and further in view of RGGURIC et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0203051 A1).
As to claim 8, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 1 excepting for wherein a first set of objects are included in the at least one first object, wherein a second set of objects are included in the at least one second object, and wherein at least one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on modifying at least one of the first set of objects to include the at least some of the new plurality of records based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set difference, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records. However, RGGURIC discloses wherein a first set of objects are included in the at least one first object, wherein a second set of objects are included in the at least one second object, and wherein at least one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on modifying at least one of the first set of objects to include the at least some of the new plurality of records based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set difference, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records (the set of above is described as first face (F1) of a first object (A) such that the first face intersects with the boundary of a second object (bB), where the intersection is not equal to zero (i.e., is not nuall set…) (paragraph 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Dageville to include wherein a first set of objects are included in the at least one first object, wherein a second set of objects are included in the at least one second object, and wherein at least one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on modifying at least one of the first set of objects to include the at least some of the new plurality of records based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set intersection; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a non-null set difference, the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records as disclosed by RGGURIC in order to provide results.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 8.
5. Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dageville et al (Patent No. US 10,534,792 B2) in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0086091 A1) and further in view of Hu et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0244635 A1).
As to claim 9, Dageville discloses the data processing system of claim 8 excepting for wherein one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set difference, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one of the first set of objects via modification of at least one of the first set of objects; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set intersection, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one new object. However, Xu disclose wherein one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set difference, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one of the first set of objects via modification of at least one of the first set of objects; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set intersection, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one new object (… this means that the interior of the first object intersects the boundary of the second object; the exterior of the first object intersects the interior of the second object; and the remaining intersects are null or don’t care…) (paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Dageville to include wherein one of: based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set difference, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one of the first set of objects via modification of at least one of the first set of objects; or based on the first set of objects and the second set of objects having a null set intersection, all of the new plurality of records are included in the at least one new object as disclosed by Xu in order to provide non data.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
6. Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dageville et al (Patent No. US 10,534,792 B2) in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0086091 A1) and further in view of Kobayashi (Pub. No US 2008/0059502 A1).
As to claim 10, Dageville discloses the data processing system claim 8 excepting for wherein the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records, wherein the request to store the new plurality of records indicates formatting instructions for the at least one new object, and wherein the at least one new object is generated to include the at least some of the new plurality of records in accordance with one of a plurality of different object formats based on the formatting instructions. However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records, wherein the request to store the new plurality of records indicates formatting instructions for the at least one new object, and wherein the at least one new object is generated to include the at least some of the new plurality of records in accordance with one of a plurality of different object formats based on the formatting instructions (as shown in FIG. 4, in the case in which an old record is present but a new record is not present, the distribution server 20 may generates an update file in which this record is designated as an object of updating, the updating set…) (paragraphs 0049-0052). This suggests the claim language wherein the object storage system stores at least some of the new plurality of records based on generating at least one of the second set of objects as at least one new object to include the at least some of the new plurality of records, wherein the request to store the new plurality of records indicates formatting instructions for the at least one new object, and wherein the at least one new object is generated to include the at least some of the new plurality of records in accordance with one of a plurality of different object formats based on the formatting instructions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 10.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights