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 .
This action is in response to Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on 03/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Currently, claims 21-40 are pending.
Priority
This application is claimed and considered as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/515,731 filed on 11/21/2023. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 11/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Applicant on 03/19/2025 has been considered. A copy of the considered IDS is enclosed with this Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the paragraph under section “CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS” as currently amended, the U.S. Patent Application No. 18/515,731 has been patented, its information should be supplemented with its patent information (e.g., Patent No.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 32-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 32, the terms “a datatype” and “a first subcomponent” in line 2 should be “the datatype” and “the first subcomponent” because they are recited in claim 21.
Regarding claim 33, the term “a first subcomponent” in line 2 should be “the first subcomponent” because it is recited in claim 21.
Regarding claim 34, the term “a second subcomponent” in line 1 should be “the second subcomponent” because it is recited in claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites storing a second subcomponent of the first databased object in an alternate persistence format while claim 21 recites storing the same subcomponent (i.e., a first subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents of the first database object) in a serial persistence format. Therefore, it is unclear whether the alternate persistence format is the same as the serial persistence format and/or how they are related.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,306,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the earlier patent anticipate or suggest all limitations as recited in claims 21-40 of this instant application.
In particular, the mapping of the rejection is as follows:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,306,818
21. A method comprising:
1. A method performed by a database system, comprising:
detecting an operation to move a first database object from an in-memory store to a persistence store, wherein the first database object is in a first format in the in-memory store, and wherein the first database object comprises a plurality of subcomponents;
detecting an operation to move a first database object from an in-memory store to a persistence store, wherein the first database object is in a first format in the in-memory store, and wherein the first database object comprises a plurality of subcomponents;
examining each subcomponent of the first database object individually and separately from other subcomponents of the plurality of subcomponents;
responsive to determining that a first subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and a compression type supported by a unified persistence format, storing the first subcomponent in the unified persistence format in the persistence store; and
responsive to determining that a first subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and a compression type supported by a unified persistence format, storing the first subcomponent in the unified persistence format in the persistence store; and
responsive to determining that a second subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and/or a compression type which is not supported by the unified persistence format, storing the second subcomponent in a serial persistence format in the persistence store.
responsive to determining that a second subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has either a datatype or a compression type which is not supported by the unified persistence format, storing the second subcomponent in a serial persistence format in the persistence store.
Similarly,
Claims 22-34 rejected by Claims 2-14 respectively
Claim 35 rejected by Claim 15
Claims 36-39 rejected by Claims 16-19 respectively
Claim 40 rejected by Claim 20
Remarks
There is no prior art rejection of claims 21-40.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is directed to a method/system for managing database objects in a database system comprising an in-memory store and a persistence store, which comprises detecting an operation to move a first database object from an in-memory store to a persistence store wherein the first database object is in a first format in the in-memory store and the first database object comprises a plurality of subcomponents; responsive to determining that a first subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and a compression type supported by a unified persistent format, storing the first subcomponent in the unified persistence format in the persistence store; and responsive to determining that a second subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and/or a compression type which is not supported by the unified persistence format, storing the second subcomponent in a serial persistence format in the persistence store.
The closest prior art of record, Florendo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0027354) teaches a method/system that provides a hybrid column store for a database system, the hybrid column store comprises an in-memory store and an on-disk store wherein the on-disk store can include an in-memory primitive store and a page primitive store (see Fig. 1 and [0011]), whether a primitive can be derived from each database object and/or its substructures by performing one or more compression schemes on the database object and/or its substructures (see [0012]), then the primitive (i.e., the compressed version of the database object and/or its substructures) can be stored/saved in either an in-memory form primitive (i.e., saving/storing the compressed version of the database object and/or its substructure as a contiguous block of data in on-disk store) or paged form primitive (i.e., saving/storing the compressed version of the database object and/or its substructure on one or more pages) in on disk store’s in-memory primitive store and paged primitive store respectively (see [0026] and [0037]), and data of the primitive can be in different formats based on different compression schemes being used (see [0027]). Florendo et al. further teaches that by using their in-memory and paged form primitives, the primary database can provide a unified persistence format for loading either in-memory or paged version of the database objects and/or its substructure (see [0038]).
However, Florendo et al. fails to anticipate or render obvious the recited features of detecting an operation to move a first database object from an in-memory store to a persistence store, wherein the first database object is in a first format in the in-memory store, and wherein the first database object comprises a plurality of subcomponents; responsive to determining that a first subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and a compression type supported by a unified persistent format, storing the first subcomponent in the unified persistence format in the persistence store; AND responsive to determining that a second subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents has a datatype and/or a compression type which is not supported by the unified persistence format, storing the second subcomponent in a serial persistence format in the persistence store, as in independent claims 21, 35 and 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164