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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
At step 1:
Claims 21-40 is directed to a “Calculated dictionary column readers technical field” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At step 2A, Prong One:
The claims 21, 28 and 35 recite the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas:
“populating a virtual column with corresponding precalculated values based on a structured query language operation applied to distinct values in a column of data in a table” recites abstract data manipulation. Courts treat generating, calculating or populating virtual view and fields as mental process or mathematical concepts, lacking the necessary technical improvement required for software patent
“compressing the virtual column with dictionary-based compression, the compressing comprising generating a column of value identifiers, each of the value identifiers representing a distinct value in the column of data” recites data manipulation can easily be dismissed as mathematical or mental processes.
“receiving a database query against the compressed virtual column; and returning a result of the database query by retrieving one or more of the precalculated values from the compressed virtual column” recites the mental process such retrieve the data and returning the result..
With respect claims 22, 29 and 36, claims recite abstract data manipulation. Courts treat generating, calculating or populating virtual view and fields as mental process or mathematical concepts, lacking the necessary technical improvement required for software patent
With respect to claims 23, 30 and 37, claims recite structured query language left function. It is abstract idea. mathematical or mental processes.
With respect to claims 24, 31 and 38, claims recite data manipulation, it is mental process.
With respect to claims 25, 32 and 39, claims recite abstract idea and it is mental process.
With respect to claims 26, 33, claims recite abstract idea. mathematical or mental processes.
With respect to claims 27, 34, and 40 claims recite abstract idea and it is mental processes.
At step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite the following additional elements:
That the content management system includes “processor” “memory”, which are high level recitation of generic computer component s and functions and represent mere instruction to apply to a computer as in MPEP 2106.05 (f) which does not provide integration into a practical application.
At step 2B
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a generic computer and mere field of use are carried over and to not provide significantly more.
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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12380078. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12380078 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 12380078 claim 1
A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, result in operations comprising:
populating a virtual column with corresponding precalculated values based on a structured query language operation applied to distinct values in a column of data in a table;
compressing the virtual column with dictionary-based compression, the compressing comprising generating a column of value identifiers, each of the value identifiers representing a distinct value in the column of data;
receiving a database query against the compressed virtual column; and
returning a result of the database query by retrieving one or more of the precalculated values from the compressed virtual column.
A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, result in operations comprising:
generating a virtual column by applying a structured query language operation on distinct values in a column of data in a table;
populating the virtual column with corresponding precalculated values based on applying the structured query language operation;
compressing the virtual column with dictionary-based compression, the compressing comprising generating a column of value identifiers, each of the value identifiers representing a distinct value in the column of data;
receiving a database query against the compressed virtual column; and
returning a result of the database query by retrieving one or more of the precalculated values from the compressed virtual column
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-26, 28-29, 31-33, 35-36, and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong ( U.S. Pub. 2018/0314737 A1)
With respect to claims 21, 28, and 35 Chong discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, result in operations comprising:
populating a virtual column with corresponding precalculated values based on a structured query language operation applied to distinct values in a column of data in a table (i.e. “Virtual columns of the in-memory table are populated with denormalized RDF data. In case of receipt of a SPARQL query, the incoming query is first translated into non-SPARQL database statements which are in turn recoded into database language statements that use lookup functions to lookup the denormalized RDF data from the virtual columns of the in-memory table rather than by incurring expensive disk I/O operations.”(abstract) or “Using the herein-disclosed techniques, denormalized query results can be efficiently generated by performing queries against an in-memory table structure having a first set of one or more columns populated from the underlying normalized table and a second set of one or more “virtual” columns having denormalized values populated from the dictionary table.”(0028));
compressing the virtual column with dictionary-based compression, the compressing comprising generating a column of value identifiers, each of the value identifiers representing a distinct value in the column of data (i.e., “FIG. 4 presents a denormalization dictionary compaction technique. In many cases the denormalization dictionary 301 can be compacted to form a compacted denormalization dictionary 303. As shown, both the “ID” column of the compacted denormalization dictionary 303 as well as the “Value” column of the compacted denormalization dictionary can be formulated to facilitate fast lookups. Moreover, the “Value” column might comprise only compressed values…a fast lookup ID representation can be formed from any arbitrary ID representation…s given in an uncompacted denormalization dictionary might be compressed into a shorter form.’(0084-85));
receiving a database query against the compressed virtual column (i.e., “Query performance is improved without increasing disk storage requirements. The in-memory virtual columns can be populated from a compressed or uncompressed RDF_VALUE$ tables (e.g., for looking-up denormalized data from normalized data). An in-memory table can be formed by adding virtual columns to all or a portion of an RDF_LINK$ table, and, by using lookup operations rather than JOIN operations when processing query statements over the in-memory table, the computational expense of joins can be eliminated”(0091)); and
returning a result of the database query by retrieving one or more of the precalculated values from the compressed virtual column (i.e., “Query performance is improved without increasing disk storage requirements. The in-memory virtual columns can be populated from a compressed or uncompressed RDF_VALUE$ tables (e.g., for looking-up denormalized data from normalized data). An in-memory table can be formed by adding virtual columns to all or a portion of an RDF_LINK$ table, and, by using lookup operations rather than JOIN operations when processing query statements over the in-memory table, the computational expense of joins can be eliminated”(0091)).
With respect to claims 22, 29 and 36, Chong discloses a system further comprising: applying, using the dictionary-based compression, further compression to the virtual column, the compression comprising combining duplicate column data and assigning a new value identifier to each distinct value in the further compressed virtual column (i.e., “the duplicate values can be compressed a workload is a specification that defines a set of columns and/or rows of one or more tables, which portions are used in one or more queries (e.g., query Q1, query Q2, etc.). In some cases, a user can define a virtual model based on a set of named columns whose values are needed during execution of queries of the workload…., thus taking up less space in the in-memory table.”(0024)).
With respect to claims 24, 31, and 38, Chong discloses wherein the structured query language operation is applied to more than one column (i.e., “In case of receipt of a SPARQL query, the incoming query is first translated into non-SPARQL database statements which are in turn recoded into database language statements that use lookup functions to lookup the denormalized RDF data from the virtual columns of the in-memory table rather than by incurring expensive disk I/O operations.”(abstract)).
With respect to claims 25,32 and 39, Chong discloses wherein the database query comprises a group by operation (i.e., “The join clause of the received database language query is recoded into a set of database operations that implement lookup functions to retrieve denormalized RDF data from the in-memory table.”(0009)).
With respect to claim 26, 33 Chong discloses wherein the database query comprises a join operation (i.e., “The join clause of the received database language query is recoded into a set of database operations that implement lookup functions to retrieve denormalized RDF data from the in-memory table.”(0009)).
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.
Claims 23, 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chong (U.S. Pub. 2018/0314737 A1). in view of Tsuboi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0226492 A1)
With respect to claims 23, 30 and 37, Chong discloses all limitations recited in claim 21 except for wherein the structured query language operation comprises a structured query language left function. However, Tsuboi et al. discloses wherein the structured query language operation comprises a structured query language left function (i.e., “FIG. 16 is a diagram showing that association is performed for the whole structure of a query pattern down to the end, by mutual recursive calls among the left sequence function, the left link function, the right sequence function and the right link function.” (0108)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Tsuboi et al.’s feature in order to have performing highly accurate information searches and information extraction for stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Tsuboi et al (0005).
Claims 27, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chong (U.S. Pub. 2018/0314737 A1). in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2025/0086202 A1)
With respect to claim 27, 34 and 40 Chong discloses all limitations recited in claim 21 except for wherein the database query comprises a set of benchmark queries. However, Zhu et al. discloses wherein the database query comprises a set of benchmark queries (i.e., “embodiments disclosed herein employ baseline model trained offline using open source benchmark queries thereby gaining a better understanding of the performance impacts various configurations changes will have for different queries.’(0032)). )). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Zhu et al.’s feature in order to maintenance best performance for a given hardware, operating system and data processing system configuration under controlled for stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Zhu et al (0035)..
Citation of Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent to Liu et al.. discloses Columnar Data Arrangement for Semi-Structured Data, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0116273.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights