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 .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 02 May 2025, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 9, and 17 are presented in independent form.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 02 May 2025, have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 15 are computing system claims that depend from a method claim 1. It appears the dependent claims 14 and 15 should depend from corresponding independent claim 9. 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-8 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
determining, based on a correspondence between m numerical range intervals and range indexes, a first range index corresponding to a numerical range to be queried on n pieces of data corresponding to n address indexes;
computing a first leaf node based on the first range index;
obtaining, in an oblivious random access manner, data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from a tree-structured database, a data block of the data blocks including an address index and a range index corresponding to the address index;
determining a target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index; and
determining a query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector.
These limitations recite mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the each of the limitations above recite a series of steps that may be mentally performed by which an evaluation is made for an abstract data. For example, the limitations of ‘determining, based on a correspondence between m numerical range intervals and range indexes, a first range index corresponding to a numerical range to be queried on n pieces of data corresponding to n address indexes; computing a first leaf node based on the first range index; obtaining, in an oblivious random access manner, data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from a tree-structured database, a data block of the data blocks including an address index and a range index corresponding to the address index; determining a target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index; and determining a query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector,’ illustrate a judgement being performed to find matching results and does not perform any technical operation. This represents a judgement or decision which are concepts performed in the human mind and falls under certain methods of mental processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including hardware processing circuitry, such as edge device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the limitations of ‘generating an n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes,’ are additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activities that that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI)), including at least:
• receiving or transmitting data over a network, and/or
• storing and retrieving information in memory
• performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 2 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 2 recites ‘ wherein the computing the corresponding first leaf node based on the first range index includes: computing the corresponding first leaf node based on the first range index and a current query order,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 2 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 2 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 2 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 2 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 3 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 3 recites ‘wherein the determining the target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index includes: searching the data blocks for a target data block including the first range index, and determining an address index in the target data block as the target address index,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 3 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 3 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 3 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 3 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 4 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 4 recites ‘wherein the generating the n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes includes: constructing an n-dimensional vector corresponding to locations of the n address indexes, setting an element at a first location of the target address index in the n-dimensional vector to a value that is not 0, and setting a second location in the n-dimensional vector to 0, to obtain the n-dimensional query vector,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 4 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 4 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 4 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 4 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 5 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 5 recites ‘wherein the determining the query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector includes: obtaining an n-dimensional query result based on a product of the n-dimensional query vector and a same-location element of a data vector, the data vector including the n pieces of data,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 5 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 5 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 5 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 5 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 6 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 6 recites ‘splitting the tree-structured database into a plurality of tree-structured database shards that are respectively stored in a plurality of storage devices; and wherein the obtaining the data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from the tree-structured database includes: separately sending the first leaf node to storage devices of the plurality of storage devices, for the storage devices to read, in an oblivious random access manner, data block shards corresponding to the first leaf node from respective tree-structured database shards ;receiving the data block shards respectively sent by the several storage devices; and constructing the data blocks based on the data block shards,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 6 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 6 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 6 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 6 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 7 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 7 recites ‘after the receiving the data block shards respectively sent by the storage devices, updating a current query order to obtain an updated query order; computing a second leaf node based on the first range index and the updated query order; and separately sending the second leaf node to the plurality of storage devices, for the plurality of storage devices to separately update corresponding data blocks in respective tree-structured database shards based on the second leaf node,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 7 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 7 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 7 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 8 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 8 recites ‘splitting a piece of data in the n pieces of data into a plurality of data shards to obtain a plurality of shard groups each including n data shards, and causing the plurality of shard groups to be respectively stored in a plurality of storage devices; wherein the determining the query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector comprises: splitting the n-dimensional query vector into a plurality of n-dimensional query vector shards; sending the plurality of n-dimensional query vector shards to the plurality of storage devices, respectively, for the plurality of storage devices to determine a query result shard based on respective n-dimensional query vector shards and n data shards; receiving the query result shards sent by the plurality of storage devices; and determining the query result based on the query result shards received from the plurality of storage devices,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 8 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 8 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 8 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 8 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claims 9-15 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-8 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 9 additionally recites ‘a computing system…’ which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claims 16-20 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-8 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 9 additionally recites ‘a non-transitory storage medium…’ which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of a non patent literature titled “Fast Range Query Processing with Strong Privacy Protection for Cloud Computing,” by Li, Rui, et al, 40th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Sept 1-5, 2014, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 7, No. 14, pages 1953-1964 (known hereinafter as Li).
As per claim 1, Li teaches a numerical range query method, the method comprising:
determining, based on a correspondence between m numerical range intervals and range indexes, a first range index corresponding to a numerical range to be queried on n pieces of data corresponding to n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.);
computing a first leaf node based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2, page 1956, which discloses a tree construction where PBtree is a highly balanced search tree that includes T leaf in the first index.);
obtaining, in an oblivious random access manner, data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from a tree-structured database (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses a Bloom filter which includes the random access manner in a form of privacy, where the PBTree includes the first leaf nodes in the tree-database structure.), a data block of the data blocks including an address index and a range index corresponding to the address index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.);
determining a target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.4 and 3.5, which discloses the query processing of PBTree [a,b] where the result R is the query result is the target address index.);
generating an n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 4.2 and 4.3, which discloses generating bit vectors based on the results of the query processing of PBTree [a,b].); and
determining a query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector (e.g. Li, see sections 4.3 and 5.2, which discloses the query results generated by the range query in the multi-dimensional bit vector query.).
As per claim 9, Li teaches a computing system, comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices, the one or more storage devices having computer executable instruction stored thereon, the computer executable instructions when executed by the one or more processors enabling the one or more processors to, individually or collectively, implement acts including:
determining, based on a correspondence between m numerical range intervals and range indexes, a first range index corresponding to a numerical range to be queried on n pieces of data corresponding to n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.);
computing a first leaf node based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2, page 1956, which discloses a tree construction where PBtree is a highly balanced search tree that includes T leaf in the first index.);
obtaining, in an oblivious random access manner, data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from a tree-structured database (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses a Bloom filter which includes the random access manner in a form of privacy, where the PBTree includes the first leaf nodes in the tree-database structure.), a data block of the data blocks including an address index and a range index corresponding to the address index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.);
determining a target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.4 and 3.5, which discloses the query processing of PBTree [a,b] where the result R is the query result is the target address index.);
generating an n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 4.2 and 4.3, which discloses generating bit vectors based on the results of the query processing of PBTree [a,b].); and
determining a query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector (e.g. Li, see sections 4.3 and 5.2, which discloses the query results generated by the range query in the multi-dimensional bit vector query.).
As per claim 17, Li teaches a non-transitory storage medium having computer executable instruction stored thereon, the computer executable instructions when executed by one or more processors enabling the one or more processors to, individually or collectively, implement acts including:
determining, based on a correspondence between m numerical range intervals and range indexes, a first range index corresponding to a numerical range to be queried on n pieces of data corresponding to n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.);
computing a first leaf node based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2, page 1956, which discloses a tree construction where PBtree is a highly balanced search tree that includes T leaf in the first index.);
obtaining, in an oblivious random access manner, data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from a tree-structured database (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses a Bloom filter which includes the random access manner in a form of privacy, where the PBTree includes the first leaf nodes in the tree-database structure.), a data block of the data blocks including an address index and a range index corresponding to the address index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.);
determining a target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index (e.g. Li, see section 3.4 and 3.5, which discloses the query processing of PBTree [a,b] where the result R is the query result is the target address index.);
generating an n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes (e.g. Li, see section 4.2 and 4.3, which discloses generating bit vectors based on the results of the query processing of PBTree [a,b].); and
determining a query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector (e.g. Li, see sections 4.3 and 5.2, which discloses the query results generated by the range query in the multi-dimensional bit vector query.).
As per claims 2, 10, and 18, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, the computing system of claim 9, and the non-transitory storage medium of claim 17, respectively, wherein the computing the corresponding first leaf node based on the first range index includes:
computing the corresponding first leaf node based on the first range index and a current query order (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses a Bloom filter which includes the random access manner in a form of privacy, where the PBTree includes the first leaf nodes in the tree-database structure.).
As per claims 3, 11, and 19, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, the computing system of claim 9, and the non-transitory storage medium of claim 17, respectively, wherein the determining the target address index from the data blocks based on the first range index includes:
searching the data blocks for a target data block including the first range index, and determining an address index in the target data block as the target address index (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.).
As per claims 4, 12, and 20, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, the computing system of claim 9, and the non-transitory storage medium of claim 17, respectively, wherein the generating the n-dimensional query vector based on the target address index and the n address indexes includes:
constructing an n-dimensional vector corresponding to locations of the n address indexes, setting an element at a first location of the target address index in the n-dimensional vector to a value that is not 0, and setting a second location in the n-dimensional vector to 0, to obtain the n-dimensional query vector (e.g. Li, see section 3.4 and 3.5, which discloses the query processing of PBTree [a,b] where the result R is the query result is the target address index.).
As per claims 5 and 13, Li teaches the method according to claim 4 and the computing system of claim 12, respectively, wherein the determining the query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector includes:
obtaining an n-dimensional query result based on a product of the n-dimensional query vector and a same-location element of a data vector, the data vector including the n pieces of data (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.).
As per claims 6 and 14, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 and the computing system according to claim 9, respectively,
comprising splitting the tree-structured database into a plurality of tree-structured database shards that are respectively stored in a plurality of storage devices (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.); and
wherein the obtaining the data blocks corresponding to the first leaf node from the tree-structured database includes:
separately sending the first leaf node to storage devices of the plurality of storage devices, for the storage devices to read, in an oblivious random access manner, data block shards corresponding to the first leaf node from respective tree-structured database shards (e.g. Li, see section 3.2, page 1956, which discloses a tree construction where PBtree is a highly balanced search tree that includes T leaf in the first index.);
receiving the data block shards respectively sent by the several storage devices (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses a Bloom filter which includes the random access manner in a form of privacy, where the PBTree includes the first leaf nodes in the tree-database structure.); and
constructing the data blocks based on the data block shards (e.g. Li, see section 4.2 and 4.3, which discloses generating bit vectors based on the results of the query processing of PBTree [a,b].).
As per claims 7 and 15, Li teaches the method according to claim 6 and the computing system according to claim 14, respectively, further comprising:
after the receiving the data block shards respectively sent by the storage devices, updating a current query order to obtain an updated query order (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.);
computing a second leaf node based on the first range index and the updated query order (e.g. Li, see section 3.2, page 1956, which discloses a tree construction where PBtree is a highly balanced search tree that includes T leaf in the first index.); and
separately sending the second leaf node to the plurality of storage devices, for the plurality of storage devices to separately update corresponding data blocks in respective tree-structured database shards based on the second leaf node (e.g. Li, see sections 4.3 and 5.2, which discloses the query results generated by the range query in the multi-dimensional bit vector query.).
As per claims 8 and 16, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 and the computing system according to claim 9, respectively, comprising splitting a piece of data in the n pieces of data into a plurality of data shards to obtain a plurality of shard groups each including n data shards, and causing the plurality of shard groups to be respectively stored in a plurality of storage devices (e.g. Li, see section 1, pages 1953-1954, which discloses for a set of records where all records have the same attribute A, which has numerical values or can be represented as numerical values, given a range query specified by an interval [a,b], the query result is the set of records whose A attributes falls into the interval.);
wherein the determining the query result from the n pieces of data based on the n-dimensional query vector comprises:
splitting the n-dimensional query vector into a plurality of n-dimensional query vector shards (e.g. Li, see section 3.2 and 3.3, which discloses index structures that include range of data, where n is the number of data items indexed by the PBTree, where PBTree [a,b] is the query and R is the query result in the range.);
sending the plurality of n-dimensional query vector shards to the plurality of storage devices, respectively, for the plurality of storage devices to determine a query result shard based on respective n-dimensional query vector shards and n data shards (e.g. Li, see section 3.4 and 3.5, which discloses the query processing of PBTree [a,b] where the result R is the query result is the target address index.);
receiving the query result shards sent by the plurality of storage devices (e.g. Li, see section 4.2 and 4.3, which discloses generating bit vectors based on the results of the query processing of PBTree [a,b].); and
determining the query result based on the query result shards received from the plurality of storage devices (e.g. Li, see sections 4.3 and 5.2, which discloses the query results generated by the range query in the multi-dimensional bit vector query.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights