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 .
Specification
The applicant amended the title and in view of the amendment, the respective objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first limitations in claims 7 and 14 recite the phrase “the data set second was in another data format” where the “data set second” should be “second data set”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
and wherein the set of foundation nodes collectively execute a set of query operational instructions on the at least a portion of the ingested data set to produce a partial query response (recites mental process steps of performing evaluations/analysis/calculations on data which can include mathematical functions);
and generate an output query response based on the partial query response and one or more output query operational instructions (recites mental process steps of analytics/analyzing as well as combinational/logical or even mathematical operations that aggregate or combine various input datasets together to form an answer/output response);
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
A database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests a data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and temporarily stores a data set in a first format to produce an ingested data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein a first load node of the set of loader nodes ingests first data of the data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests second data of the data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions (recites creating computer instructions to perform generic computer operations at a high-level of generality amounting to idea of a solution that uses the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recite generic computer elements at a high-level of generality to perform/implement the abstract idea as well as various generic functions of retrieving and storing information as well as transmitting information.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
A database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests a data set (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and temporarily stores a data set in a first format to produce an ingested data set (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein a first load node of the set of loader nodes ingests first data of the data set (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)), and temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests second data of the data set (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes (recites generic computer elements to use a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions (recites creating computer instructions to perform generic computer operations at a high-level of generality amounting to idea of a solution that uses the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements generic computer elements at a high-level of generality to perform/implement the abstract idea as well as various generic functions of retrieving and storing information as well as transmitting information.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites wherein the data set comprises: a batch load data set; or a streaming data set (recites field of use limitations describing the intended means/format of the data that is gathered/acquired, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above).
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites wherein the load sub-system further comprises: a batch interface for receiving the batch load data set; and a streaming interface for receiving the streaming data set (recites apply-it limitations of describing generic computer elements for generic computer functions of being able to receive particular data via computerized interfaces, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites wherein the load sub-system further comprises: a second set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)), transforms (recites mental process steps of converting/transforming data from one form to another similar to conversion of binary coded decimal to pure binary numbers), and temporarily stores a second data set to produce a second ingested data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein a first loader node of the second set of loader nodes ingests first data of the second data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and temporarily stores the first data of the second data set in the first data format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
and wherein a second loader node of the second set of loader nodes ingests second data of the second data set (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering or receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering or receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and temporarily stores the second data of the second data set in the first data format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 5, this claim recites loader nodes of the set of loader node collectively operating in parallel to ingest, transform, and temporarily store the data set (recites technological environment limitation describing parallel processing at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea).
With regard to claim 6, this claim recites the loader sub-system determining a number of loader nodes to include in the set of loader nodes based on data size of the data set (recites mental process steps of evaluating and analyzing to form a decision/judgement on how many resources to use).
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites the set of loader nodes transforming the data set into the first data format when, as received, the data set second was in another data format; wherein the first loader node transforms the first data from the other data format to the first data format, and wherein the second loader node transforms the second data from the other data format to the first data format (recites mental process steps of converting/transforming data from one form to another similar to conversion of binary coded decimal to pure binary numbers).
With regard to claim 8-14, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-7 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al [US 2017/0083588 A1] in view of Oberbrekling et al [US 2018/0074786 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Lang teaches a database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests a data set
“For example, the query partitioner 310 may partition the query 104 based upon the number, kinds, and sequence of operators comprising the query 104; e.g., a query 104 specified in SQL may be partitioned into a first query portion 206 comprising a “SELECT NAME, DATE FROM RECORDS” operation that projects selected records from a data set;”, para 45; Examiner Note (EN): projecting from a dataset is similar to ingesting data since both relate to the receiving of data from a dataset);
wherein a first loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests first data of the data set,
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes,
“For instance, the data set 102 may be distributed over the node set 106, and respective nodes 106 may apply a query operator to the subset of the data set 102 that is stored by and/or accessible to the node 106. In this model, the nodes 108 selected from the node set 106 may be arranged as a processing chain or pipeline; e.g., a node 108 may receive a first intermediate result 214 produced by a previous selected node 108 by performing a previous query portion 206 of the query 104, may execute the query instruction set 212 over the first intermediate result 214 to produce a second intermediate query result 214, and may transmit the second intermediate query result 214 to a next selected node 322 of the node set 108.”, para 61);
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes, wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions, and generate an output query response based on the partial query response and one or more output query operational instructions (see [0045], [0047], and [0061], [0036]; the system can have a processing chain/pipeline with earlier stages/nodes sending results to a second set of query engines/nodes that perform additional operations in accordance with an instruction set to produce an intermediate query response;
“For instance, the data set 102 may be distributed over the node set 106, and respective nodes 106 may apply a query operator to the subset of the data set 102 that is stored by and/or accessible to the node 106. In this model, the nodes 108 selected from the node set 106 may be arranged as a processing chain or pipeline; e.g., a node 108 may receive a first intermediate result 214 produced by a previous selected node 108 by performing a previous query portion 206 of the query 104, may execute the query instruction set 212 over the first intermediate result 214 to produce a second intermediate query result 214, and may transmit the second intermediate query result 214 to a next selected node 322 of the node set 108.”, para 61;
“The selected nodes 108 are then instructed to invoke the query instruction sets 210, which causes the set of selected nodes 108 to execute the query instruction sets 210 that, together, cause the selected nodes 108 to perform the entire query 104 in a distributed manner”, para 36);
Lang does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes… temporarily stores the data set in a first data format to produce an ingested data set,
wherein a first loader node of the set of loader nodes … temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format, and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes … temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format;
wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set.
Oberbrekling teaches wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes… temporarily stores the data set in a first data format to produce an ingested data set (see paragraphs [0039], [0037], [0053], [0055], [0063], and [0068]; the system can have an ingest subsystem that allows for the short term storage of data as well as have long term storage for the data after it has been ingested;
“In certain embodiments of the present disclosure, prior to loading data into a data warehouse (or other data target) the data is processed through a pipeline (also referred to herein as a semantic pipeline) which includes various processing stages. In some embodiments, the pipeline can include an ingest stage, prepare stage, profile stage, transform stage, and publish stage.”, para 37;
“The distributed storage system 105 provides a temporary storage space for ingested data files, which can then also provide storage of intermediate processing files, and for temporary storage of results prior to publication”, para 39;
“The publishing sub-system can deliver the processed data to one or more data targets. A data target may correspond to a place where the processed data can be sent. The place may be, for example, a location in memory, a computing system, a database, or a system that provides a service.”, para 53;
“The prepare engine can identify a format associated with the raw data and can convert the raw data into a format (e.g., normalize the raw data) that can be processed by the data enrichment service 302.”, para 63).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed query processing system of Lang by including a load/ingest sub-system can that uses both temporary and non-temporary storage as taught by Oberbrekling in order to allow the system to be able to receive new data and store that data in quicker volatile memory for temporary storage and any subsequent operations before sending the data to more permanent but slower storage for other downstream processes while ensuring no data loss if the node losses power since ingested data is not in any temporary or volatile storage.
Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach wherein a first loader node of the set of loader nodes … temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format, and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes … temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format (see Oberbrekling, paragraphs [0039] and [0068]; see Lang, see paragraphs [0045], [0047], [0060]-[0061], and [0063]; the loader or ingest stage can involve use temporary storage for the ingested data);
wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set (see Lang, paragraph [0003], [0045], [0047], [0048] and [0061]; see Oberbrekling, paragraphs [0039], [0037], [0053], [0055], [0063], and [0068]; the system can utilize various types of memory including long-term storage memory such as solid state/flash devices).
With regard to claim 2, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach wherein the data set comprises: a batch load data set; or a streaming data set (see Lang, paragraph [0033]; see Oberbrekling, paragraph [0179]; the data set can be from a data stream or batch data set).
With regard to claim 3, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach wherein the load sub-system further comprises: a batch interface for receiving the batch load data set; and a streaming interface for receiving the streaming data set (see Lang, paragraph [0033]; the system can receive batch or streaming data).
With regard to claim 4, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach wherein the load sub-system further comprises: a second set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests, transforms, and temporarily stores a second data set to produce a second ingested data set, wherein a first loader node of the second set of loader nodes ingests first data of the second data set and temporarily stores the first data of the second data set in the first data format, and wherein a second loader node of the second set of loader nodes ingests second data of the second data set and temporarily stores the second data of the second data set in the first data format (see Lang, paragraphs [0045], [0047], [0060]-[0061], and [0063]; the system is able to have a sub-system component with memory that can receive/load data and be able to perform operations on the ingested data; see Oberbrekling, paragraphs [0039], [0037], [0053], [0055], [0063], and [0068]; the system can have an ingest subsystem that allows for the short term storage of data as well as have long term storage for the data after it has been ingested including having a transform/conversion operations to a different format).
With regard to claim 5, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach loader nodes of the set of loader node collectively operating in parallel to ingest, transform, and temporarily store the data set (see Lang, Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0032] and [0049]; see Oberbrekling, paragraphs [0054], [0077]; the system can have a distributed architecture that allows for parallel operations to perform on respective portions of the dataset).
With regard to claim 7, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach the set of loader nodes transforming the data set into the first data format when, as received, the data set second was in another data format; wherein the first loader node transforms the first data from the other data format to the first data format, and wherein the second loader node transforms the second data from the other data format to the first data format (see Lang, paragraphs [0045], [0047], [0060]-[0061], and [0063]; see Oberbrekling, paragraphs [0039], [0037], [0063], and [0068]; the system is able to perform transform/conversion operations on the uploaded/ingested data to convert/transform it to a different format).
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above. The main difference between claims 1 and 11 is that claim 11 recites a first set of computing devices and a second set of computing devices and third plurality of computing devices (see Lang, Fig 2 and paragraphs 61 and 72-75; various devices and device types can be used including the ability to have different sets of nodes for different types of operations of the query).
Claims 9-12 and 14 are substantially similar to claims 2-5 and 7 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al [US 2017/0083588 A1] in view of Oberbrekling et al [US 2018/0074786 A1] in further view of Idicula et al [US 2020/0125568 A1].
With regard to claim 6, Lang in view of Oberbrekling teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lang in view of Oberbrekling do not appear to explicitly teach: the loader sub-system determining a number of loader nodes to include in the set of loader nodes based on data size of the data set.
Idicula teaches the loader sub-system determining a number of loader nodes to include in the set of loader nodes based on data size of the data set (see paragraph [0114] and [0027]; the system can determine the number of nodes based on the data size).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed query processing system of Lang in view of Oberbrekling by including means to determine the number of nodes needed for the dataset as taught by Idicula in order to ensure that a minimum number of nodes are used to ensure that the system can be optimally run with at least as few resources as possible thus helping ensure that the system isn’t utilizing more resources than necessary which, if too many resources, will sit idle wasting processing time and energy and potentially bottle-necking other users that want to perform processes on the system while also ensuring that too few resources aren’t being used so that the system can actually perform the respective tasks in a reasonable performance time and not being taking too long to accomplish the task(s) (see Idicula, paragraph [0029], [0088]-[0089]).
With regard to claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
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 1 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19/227,097 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
#
Limitation
‘097 Limitation
‘097 #
1
A database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests a data set and temporarily stores the data set in a first data format to produce an ingested data set,
A database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests, transforms, and temporarily stores a data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
wherein a first loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests first data of the data set, and temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format,
a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests, transforms, and temporarily stores a data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests second data of the data set and temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format;
a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests, transforms, and temporarily stores a data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes, wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set and wherein the set of foundation nodes collectively execute a set of query operational instructions on the at least a portion of the ingested data set to produce a partial query response;
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes, wherein a set of foundation nodes of the plurality of foundation nodes collectively execute a set of query operational instructions on the at least a portion of the ingested data set to produce a partial query response;
1
1
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes, wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions, and generate an output query response based on the partial query response and one or more output query operational instructions.
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes, wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions, and wherein the set of SQL nodes collectively generate an output query response based on the partial query response and one or more output query operational instructions;
1
The main difference between the instant claims versus the reference application’s claims is that the instant claims recite “wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set” indicate that the storage and compute sub-system has nodes that can long-term store the ingested data which is obvious in view of the reference application since the reference application indicates that it can perform various query operations at those nodes where a computer would require memory in order to actually function on data and intermediate results otherwise that data would be lost once calculations were performed where the memory used by computing devices/nodes is widely used types of memory including solid-state, Flash, ROM or hard disks. Thus merely indicating a required function of a computer does not provide a patentable distinction between the claims.
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 19/207,178 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
#
Limitation
‘178 Limitation
‘178 #
1
A database system comprises: a load sub-system that includes a plurality of loader nodes, wherein a set of loader nodes of the plurality of loader nodes collectively ingests a data set and temporarily stores the data set in a first data format to produce an ingested data set,
A database system comprises: a load and store sub-system that includes: a data input module operable to ingest a data set; short term storage operable to temporarily store the data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
wherein a first loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests first data of the data set, and temporarily stores the first data of the data set in the first data format,
a load and store sub-system that includes: a data input module operable to ingest a data set; short term storage operable to temporarily store the data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
and wherein a second loader node of the set of loader nodes ingests second data of the data set and temporarily stores the second data of the data set in the first data format;
a load and store sub-system that includes: a data input module operable to ingest a data set; short term storage operable to temporarily store the data set to produce an ingested data set;
1
1
a store and compute sub-system that includes a plurality of foundation nodes, wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set and wherein the set of foundation nodes collectively execute a set of query operational instructions on the at least a portion of the ingested data set to produce a partial query response;
a query execution sub-system that includes: a plurality of local query engines operable to: collectively obtain the ingested data set; and collectively execute a set of local query operational instructions on at least a portion of the ingested data set to produce a local partial query response;
1
1
and a query and response sub-system that includes a plurality of SQL (Standard Query Language) nodes, wherein a set of SQL nodes of the plurality of SQL nodes collectively generate the set of query operational instructions, and generate an output query response based on the partial query response and one or more output query operational instructions.
a global query engine operatable to execute a set of global query operational instructions on at least a portion of the intermediate partial query response to produce a query result;
and a query planning subsystem operable to: generate … the set of global query operational instructions;
1
2
wherein the data set comprises: a batch load data set; or a streaming data set.
wherein the data set comprises: a batch load data set; or a streaming data set.
2
3
wherein the load sub-system further comprises: a batch interface for receiving the batch load data set; and a streaming interface for receiving the streaming data set.
wherein the data input module comprises: a batch interface for receiving the batch load data set; and a streaming interface for receiving the streaming data set.
3
The main difference between the instant claims versus the reference application’s claims is that the instant claims recite “wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set” indicate that the storage and compute sub-system has nodes that can long-term store the ingested data which is obvious in view of the reference application since the reference application indicates that it can perform various query operations at those nodes where a computer would require memory in order to actually function on data and intermediate results otherwise that data would be lost once calculations were performed where the memory used by computing devices/nodes is widely used types of memory including solid-state, Flash, ROM or hard disks. Thus merely indicating a required function of a computer does not provide a patentable distinction between the claims.
Claims 8-10 are substantially similar to claims 1-3 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 19/206,322 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is mapped in a similar fashion as the other respective claim 1 mappings above; the reference application includes more limitations than the instant claims where the main difference between the instant claims versus the reference application’s claims is that the instant claims recite “wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set” indicate that the storage and compute sub-system has nodes that can long-term store the ingested data which is obvious in view of the reference application since the reference application indicates that it can perform various query operations at those nodes where a computer would require memory in order to actually function on data and intermediate results otherwise that data would be lost once calculations were performed where the memory used by computing devices/nodes is widely used types of memory including solid-state, Flash, ROM or hard disks. Thus merely indicating a required function of a computer does not provide a patentable distinction between the claims. Additionally, claim 4 of reference application is also recited in claim 1 of instant application.
Claims 2-3 of instant application are near identical to claims 2-3 of reference application and are mapped accordingly.
Claim 4 is similar to claim 7 of reference application.
Claim 5 is similar to claim 8 of reference application.
Claim 6 is similar to claim 9 of reference application.
Claim 7 is similar to claim 5 of reference application.
Claims 8-14 are substantially similar to claims 1-7 and are rejected/mapped in similar fashion as discussed above.
Claims 1 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/201,349 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is mapped in a similar fashion as the other respective claim 1 mappings above; the reference application includes more limitations than the instant claims where the main difference between the instant claims versus the reference application’s claims is that the instant claims recite “wherein a set of foundation nodes collectively long-term store at least a portion of the ingested data set” indicate that the storage and compute sub-system has nodes that can long-term store the ingested data which is obvious in view of the reference application since the reference application indicates that it can perform various query operations at those nodes where a computer would require memory in order to actually function on data and intermediate results otherwise that data would be lost once calculations were performed where the memory used by computing devices/nodes is widely used types of memory including solid-state, Flash, ROM or hard disks. Thus merely indicating a required function of a computer does not provide a patentable distinction between the claims. Additionally, claim 4 of reference application is also recited in claim 1 of instant application.
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights