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 .
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A query and response sub-system of a database system, wherein the query and response sub-system comprises: a plurality of computing devices, wherein a computing device of the plurality of computing devices is operably coupled to:
identify a first switch block operator in a non-final query plan regarding a massive scale query wherein the first switch block operator includes a CASE statement that includes a predicate, wherein the non-final query plan includes a plurality of query operators that is organized into a non-final query operation execution flow, and wherein the first switch block operator is one of the plurality of query operators;
in accordance with the non-final query execution flow, identify a second switch block operator within the plurality of query operators, wherein the second switch block operator includes a second CASE statement;
determine whether a predicate of the second switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator; a
and when the predicate of the second switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator:
merge the first and second switch block operators to produce a merged switch block operator; and adjust the non-final query plan to remove the first and second switch block operators and to include the merged switch block operator to create an updated query plan.
Examiner finds that the emphasized portions of claim 1 above recite an abstract idea—namely, mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III):
Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
When read as a whole, the recited limitations are directed to using mental steps to observe, evaluate, and make judgements about electronic data (e.g. to observe, evaluate, and make judgements regarding SQL code).
Taking each element individually, Examiner provides the following analysis:
Bolded Abstract Idea Claim Elements
Examiner analysis of bolded abstract idea elements considered individually
identify a first switch block operator in a non-final query plan regarding a massive scale query, wherein the first switch block operator includes a CASE statement that includes a predicate, wherein the non-final query plan includes a plurality of query operators that is organized into a non-final query operation execution flow, and wherein the first switch block operator is one of the plurality of query operators;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of a query plan (e.g. looking at SQL code) and an evaluation and/or judgment as to whether the query plan (1) contains a first switch block operator;
(2) includes a CASE statement that includes a predicate;
(3) includes a plurality of query operators that is organized into a non-final query operation execution flow, and
(4) whether the first switch block operator is one of the plurality of query operators.
Examiner finds these evaluations/judgments can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The ability of the query plan to include a “massive scale query” has no bearing on whether a human can practically identify a switch block operator in a query plan. That is, that the query can be run on a massive amount of data does not preclude a human from observing and evaluating said query.
in accordance with the non-final query execution flow, identify a second switch block operator within the plurality of query operators, wherein the second switch block operator includes a second CASE statement;
This element merely requires evaluation of the query flow and an evaluation/judgment as to whether it contains a second switch block operator within the plurality of query operators, and whether the second switch block operator includes a second CASE statement.
Examiner finds these evaluations/judgments can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
and when the predicate of the second switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator:
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the predicates and a judgment as to whether they are substantially similar.
Examiner finds these evaluations/judgments can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
merge the first and second switch block operators to produce a merged switch block operator;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the switch block operators (e.g. SQL code) and a judgment as to how to merge them (e.g. how to rewrite the code such that the block operators are merged). Examiner finds this can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
and adjust the non-final query plan to remove the first and second switch block operators and to include the merged switch block operator to create an updated query plan.
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan and an evaluation/judgment as to how to remove the switch block operators and how to include the merged switch block in the updated plan (e.g. rewriting the plan such that the updated SQL only includes the merged operator). Examiner finds this can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
Turning to the additional elements, Examiner provides the following analysis:
Italicized Additional elements
Examiner analysis of italicized additional elements and whether they integrate the exception and whether they recite an inventive concept.
Relevant MPEP sections
1. A query and response sub-system of a database system, wherein the query and response sub-system comprises: a plurality of computing devices, wherein a computing device of the plurality of computing devices is operably coupled to:
Examiner finds these additional elements recite mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer. As such, they fail to integrate the exception and fail to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(f)
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, when the claim elements are considered as a whole and individually, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 is also rejected for the reasons given above for claim 1.
Additionally, the following elements “11. A computer readable memory comprises: a first memory that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a computing device of a plurality of computing devices of a query and response sub-system of a database system, causes the computing device to: . . . a second memory that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the computing device, causes the computing device to” recite mere instructions to apply the exception and thus do not integrate the exception or recite an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons indicated below.
Abstract idea elements in bold
Additional elements in italics
Claim
Analysis
MPEP
2. The query and response sub-system of claim 1 further comprises: the first switch block includes a first SELECT statement and the CASE statement, wherein the CASE statement includes the predicate that provides a condition, a first THEN result, and a first ELSE result;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan (e.g. SQL code) and an evaluation/judgment as to whether “the first switch block includes a first SELECT statement and the CASE statement, “ and whether “the CASE statement includes the predicate that provides a condition, a first THEN result, and a first ELSE result.”
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
and the second switch block includes a second SELECT statement and the second CASE statement, wherein the second CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, a second THEN result, and a second ELSE result.
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan (e.g. SQL code) and an evaluation/judgment as to whether “the second switch block includes a second SELECT statement and the second CASE statement” and whether “the second CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, a second THEN result, and a second ELSE result..”
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
3. The query and response sub-system of claim 2, wherein the merged switch block operator comprises: a merged SELECT statement and a merged CASE statement, wherein the merged CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, the first THEN result, the first ELSE result, the second THEN result, and the second ELSE result.
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan (e.g. SQL code) and an evaluation/judgment as to whether “the merged switch block operator comprises: a merged SELECT statement and a merged CASE statement, “ and whether “the merged CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, the first THEN result, the first ELSE result, the second THEN result, and the second ELSE result.”
Examiner also finds performing the recited merger of the select statements can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
4. The query and response sub-system of claim 1 further comprises: the first switch block includes a first SELECT statement and the CASE statement, wherein the CASE statement includes the predicate that provides a condition, a first THEN result, a second predicate that provides a second condition, a third THEN result, and a first ELSE result;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan (e.g. SQL code) and an evaluation/judgment as to whether “the first switch block includes a first SELECT statement and the CASE statement, and whether “the CASE statement includes the predicate that provides a condition, a first THEN result, a second predicate that provides a second condition, a third THEN result, and a first ELSE result”
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
and the second switch block includes a second SELECT statement and the second CASE statement, wherein the second CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, a second THEN result, the second predicate that provides the second condition, a fifth THEN result, and a second ELSE result.
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan (e.g. SQL code) and an evaluation/judgment as to whether “the second switch block includes a second SELECT statement and the second CASE statement” and whether “the second CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, a second THEN result, the second predicate that provides the second condition, a fifth THEN result, and a second ELSE result.”
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
5. The query and response sub-system of claim 1, wherein the computing device, or portion thereof, is further operable to a
See additional elements in claim 1 above.
adjust the non-final query plan by: removing a UNION statement regarding the first and second switch block operators.
This element merely recites an evaluation/judgment being performed (i.e. the removing of the UNION statement). Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
6. The query and response sub-system of claim 1 further comprises at least one of: the updated query plan includes an updated query execution flow; and a query operator of the plurality of query operators include one or more operational instructions regarding a query operation.
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query plan and an evaluation/judgment as to how to update the query plan. It also recites evaluations being performed on a query operator.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
7. The query and response sub-system of claim 1, wherein the computing device, or a portion thereof, is further operable
See claim 1’s additional elements above.
to identify the second switch block operator by:
This element merely requires observation of the query plan and/or flow.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
traversing the non-final query execution flow to a parent operator of the plurality of operators;
This element merely requires observation/evaluation of the query flow.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
determining whether the parent operator is a non-eligible parent;
This element merely requires an evaluation/judgment as to whether the parent operator is a non-eligible parent.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
when the parent operator is an eligible parent, determining whether the parent operator is a switch block operator.
This element merely requires an evaluation/judgment as to whether the parent operator is a block operator.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
8. The query and response sub-system of claim 1 further comprises: the computing device is in a set of computing devices of the plurality of computing devices, wherein set of computing devices assists the computing device in generating the updated query plan.
Claim 8 generally links the abstract idea recited in claim 1 to a computing environment. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(h)
9. The query and response sub-system of claim 1, wherein the computing device, or portion thereof, is further operable to:
See claim 1’s additional elements above.
in accordance with the non-final query execution flow, identify a third switch block operator within the plurality of query operators, wherein the third switch block operator includes a third CASE statement;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the query flow and an evaluation as to whether it includes “a third switch block operator within the plurality of query operators” and whether the ”third switch block operator includes a third CASE statement.”
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
determine whether a predicate of the third switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator;
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the first and third switch operators and an evaluation/judgment as to whether their predicates are substantially similar.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
when the predicate of the third switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator:
This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the first and third switch operators and an evaluation/judgment as to whether their predicates are substantially similar.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
merge the first, second, and third switch block operators to produce the merged switch block operator;
This element merely recites the result of the “substantially similar” evaluation/judgment. Examiner finds producing the merged operator can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. It merely requires evaluation and judgment.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
And adjust the non-final query plan to remove the first, second, and third switch block operators and to include the merged switch block operator to create an updated query plan.
Examiner finds removing the block operators according to evaluation/judgments performed to adjust and update query plan can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
Claims 12-18 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 2-8.
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, when the claim elements above are considered as a whole and individually, claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie US 20180157707 A1 in view of KMS Technology, 8 Practical Tips for an ETL Solution, Oct 1, 2018 (hereinafter KMS).
With respect to claim 1 and 11, Lurie US 20180157707 A1 teaches “1. A query and response sub-system of a database system,” in para. 13; para. 52 and para. 57; “wherein the query and response sub-system comprises: a plurality of computing devices” in para. 52
“wherein a computing device of the plurality of computing devices is operably couple to: identify a first switch block operator in a non-final query plan . . . ” in para. 36 and Fig. 3 (act 314); Examiner finds the non-final query plan is (“SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN C4 END ) ,SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN C5 END ) ,SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN NULL ELSE C6 END ) ,SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN NULL ELSE C7 END )” because it is a pre-optimized query and is not the final query; Examiner finds first switch block operator is contained in the second CASE WHEN clause in the non-optimized query in para. 36).
“wherein the first switch block operator includes a CASE statement that includes a predicate” in para. 36 (Examiner finds first switch block operator is contained in the second CASE WHEN clause in the pre-optimized query quoted in para. 36);
“wherein the non-final query plan includes a plurality of query operators that is organized into a non-final query operation execution flow, and wherein the first switch block operator is one of the plurality of query operators;” in para. 36 (Examiner finds first switch block operator is the second CASE WHEN clause in the pre-optimized query quoted in para. 36; Examiner finds the additional CASE WHEN clauses include plurality of operators—i.e. the 3rd and 4th CASE WHEN clauses);
“in accordance with the non-final query execution flow, identify a second switch block operator within the plurality of query operators,” in para. 36 (Examiner finds second switch block operator is the CASE WHEN clause after the second one, i.e. (“. . . SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN NULL ELSE C6 END )”);
“wherein the second switch block operator includes a second CASE statement” in para. 36 (second CASE statement is “SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN NULL ELSE C6 END )”);
“determine whether a predicate of the second switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator” in Fig. 3 step 314 and para. 36 (“repetition of same expression” teaches this element; also, “C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN C5 END ” is substantially similar to “C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN C6 END”);
“and when the predicate of the second switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator: merge the first and second switch block operators to produce a merged switch block operator” in para. 36 and Fig. 3 step 314 (merged switch block operator is ”CASE WHEN C3BOOLEAN = TRUE”)”;
“and adjust the non-final query plan to remove the first and second switch block operators and to include the merged switch block operator to create an updated query plan” in para. 36 (second and third switch block operators CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 replaced with merged switch block operator, i.e. “(CASE WHEN C3BOOLEAN = TRUE”); this is the new, optimized query; Examiner find this new, optimized query teaches a query plan by definition).
Lurie teaches ETL processes involving queries and query plans. See paras. 2-3.
It appears Lurie fails to explicitly teach “regarding a massive scale query.”
However, KMS teaches “regarding a massive scale query” on p. 2-3 last bullet point p. 3 bullet point at top of page.
KMS and Lurie are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the query and query plan in Lurie to include “regarding a massive scale query.”
The motivation would have been to execute large and highly complex transformations quickly in various data domains such as healthcare. See KMS page 3 top of page lines 1-4 and first bullet point.
With respect to claim 6 and 16, Lurie teaches “at least one of: the updated query plan includes an updated query execution flow; and a query operator of the plurality of query operators include one or more operational instructions regarding a query operation” in para. 36 (execution flow is updated in that the execution flow has less execution cost—see Lurie paras. 1-4.).
With respect to claim 8 and 18, Lurie teaches “the computing device is in a set of computing devices of the plurality of computing devices, wherein set of computing devices assists the computing device in generating the updated query plan” in Fig. 1 (the computing device is item 112); paras. 52 and 54 (computing device can be part of a set).
With respect to claim 9 and 19, Lurie teaches “wherein the computing device, or portion thereof, is further operable to: in accordance with the non-final query execution flow, identify a third switch block operator within the plurality of query operators,” in para. 36 (third switch block operator is contained in the fourth CASE WHEN clause in the pre-optimized query);
“wherein the third switch block operator includes a third CASE statement” in para. 36 (fourth CASE when clause is third case statement);
“determine whether a predicate of the third switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator” in para. 36 (fourth CASE’s predicate is substantially similar to second’s i.e. (“SUM(CASE WHEN C3 BETWEEN 7 AND 9 THEN NULL”);
“when the predicate of the third switch block operator is substantially similar to the predicate of the first switch block operator: merge the first, second, and third switch block operators to produce the merged switch block operator” in para. 36 (second, third, and fourth are merged of pre-optimized query are merged as illustrated in optimized query—i.e. “CASE WHEN C3BOOLEAN = TRUE”)”;
“and adjust the non-final query plan to remove the first, second, and third switch block operators and to include the merged switch block operator to create an updated query plan” in para. 36 (updated query plan is the optimized que
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie in view of KMS as applied to claim 1 and claim 11 above.
With respect to claim 2 and 12, Lurie teaches ”The query and response sub-system of claim 1 further comprises: the first switch block includes a first . . .statement and the CASE statement, wherein the CASE statement includes the predicate that provides a condition, a first THEN result, and a first ELSE result; and the second switch block includes a second . . . statement and the second CASE statement, wherein the second CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, a second THEN result, and a second ELSE result” in para. 36, but paragraph 36 fails to explicitly teach that the first and second statements are SELECT statements1.
However, Lurie teaches SELECT statements are commonly used in CASE statements in paras. 2, 4, 8.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify he first and second statements in Lurie to include a first and second SELECT statement.
The motivation would have been to allow data transformations on real time data thereby reducing data latency. See Lurie para. 3.
With respect to claim 3 and 13, Lurie teaches “wherein the merged switch block operator comprises: a merged SELECT statement and a merged CASE statement, wherein the merged CASE statement includes the predicate that provides the condition, the first THEN result, the first ELSE result, the second THEN result, and the second ELSE result” in para. 36 (Examiner finds the optimized query in para. 36 has the merged case statement ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “In general, this 101 rejection is based on the Examiner's unsupported and conclusory statement that each step of claim 1 ‘can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.’”
Examiner meticulously analyzed each and every element in each and every claim. Examiner gave reasons why each element was a mental process or an additional element. Applicant’s characterization of Examiner’s 101 rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues “This statement ignores the meaning of a database system and why databases were created.”
Mere data gathering and storing and retrieving information in memory are additional elements that do not integrate the exception and do not recite an inventive concept. Examiner never found that humans could perform large scale DBMS queries.
Applicant further quotes the specification with respect to “massive database systems” and argues “Databases were designed to store large amounts of data and perform large and complex applications at speeds and volumes well beyond the capabilities of the human mind.”
Examiner never indicated that a human could “store large amounts of data and perform large and complex applications at speeds and volumes well beyond the capabilities of the human mind.”
Applicant argues “Further, the database system of claim 1 is regarding the processing of data at a massive scale as stated above in paragraph 16. As such, the subject matter of claims 1, and 20-38 is far beyond what the human mind is capable of perform with the aid of pen and paper.” The claimed invention does not explicitly recite processing data at a massive scale. The words “regarding a massive scale query” merely refers to “a” (i.e. “1” “a single”) query in a query plan that can be run against a massive dataset. A human being can identify (i.e. observe and evaluate), for example, a switch block operator in a query. That the query has the capability of being run against a massive set of data does not mean the query cannot be observed and evaluated by the human mind.
Even if the claim did explicitly recite processing data on a massive scale, Examiner would likely find such an element an additional element that would (1) generally link the abstract idea to field of use of big data processing and therefore not recite significantly more and/or (2) It would not integrate the exception and would not recite an inventive concept because it would recite mere data gathering and the conventional computer function of storing and retrieving data. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Further, the present 101 rejection is at odds with Director Squire's guidance. For instance: In Exparte Desjardins, Director Squires found claims directed towards a machine learning model to be of patentable subject matter because the exception (an algorithm, or math, in this case) was integrated into a practical application. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567, p. 10 (Decided Sept. 26, 2025). D
Applicant’s invention does not involve a machine learning model.
Applicant argues
Director Squires noted that claims "'[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use' are not patent eligible" but claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." Id. at 7-8 (quoting MPEP § 2106.05(h); §§ 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a)).
Examiner agrees that computer-related (software related) claims can and are routinely held to be patent eligible.
Applicant argues
Director Squires quoted Enfish in discussing the eligibility of technological improvements stating that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 at 8; Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner agrees that computer-related (software related) claims can and are routinely held to be patent eligible.
Applicant argues
Director Squires further provided that because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 at 8; 822 F.3d at 1336.
Examiner agrees that computer-related (software related) claims can and are routinely held to be patent eligible.
Applicant argues
Under this reasoning, Director Squires found that the claims at issue were directed toward a technological improvement because the claimed machine learning model effectively learns new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks which allows Al systems to use less of their storage capacity and reduces system complexity. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 at 8-9. Further, Director Squires warned that claims should not be evaluated at such a high level of generality. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 at 9 (stating that "under the panel's reasoning, many Al innovations are potentially unpatentable ...because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components").
None of the elements in the instant claimed invention are remotely analogous to machine learning algorithms or training machine learning models.
Applicant further argues
Using Director Squire's reasoning above, "claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible" and "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes", claims 1, and 20-38 are of patentable subject matter.
Examiner agrees that computer-related (software related) claims can and are routinely held to be patent eligible. The instant claimed invention is not patent eligible for the reasons indicated above.
Applicant further argues
In particular, claim 1, claims in part, a practical application of a database system that improves optimizing a query plan of a massive scale query for execution within a database system. This improvement is achieved through a plurality of detailed and specific steps performed by a query and response sub-system of the database system as per claim 1
The recited query plan includes “a” massive scale query. Evaluation of “a” massive scale query in a query plan can be practically performed by a human being. Again, “a” massive scale query merely means the query can be run against a large amount of records. It says nothing about the contents of the actual query.
Applicant further argues
Thus, the database of claim 1 perform multiple steps that are not generic computing components and cannot be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, but are novel and definitive logical structures and/or processes of a massive scale database system in accordance with Director Squire's reasonings.
The recited query plan includes “a” massive scale query. Evaluation of “a” massive scale query can be practically performed by a human being. Again, “a” massive scale query merely means the query can be run against a large amount of records. It says nothing about the contents of the actual query. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Lurie discloses optimizing various types of CASE statements in a variety of ways. For example, from paragraph 23 to 53, discuss a variety of ways to optimize a CASE statement. Lurie, however, does not teach of suggest merging two switch block operators, each having one or more CASE statements.”
This argument is not persuasive. Lurie teaches merging two switch block operators, each having one or more CASE statements in at least para. 36 and Fig. 3 step 314. See Non-Final Rejection 4/21/2026 page 15 lines 4-16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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 J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
1 It appears the embodiment in Fig. 30B of Applicant’s specification teaches one select statement for two case statements (3005.1 and 3005.2).
Prosecution Insights