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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference listed in the IDS filed 7/11/2025 has been considered. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
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 Ornum, 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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Pat. 12,399,882. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bensberg et al. (US Pub. 2012/0011108, hereinafter “Bensberg”) in view of Lacapra et al. (US Pub. 2009/0271412, hereinafter “Lacapra”).
Regarding claim 1, Bensberg discloses a computer-implemented method for providing data aggregation based on hash map data structures, comprising:
receiving a query specifying an input table and an aggregate function (¶ [0017], execution of queries based on input table data. The database may include relational data tables, data structures (e.g., index hash tables));
generating a first thread-local hash map and a second thread-local hash map for the input table, comprising performing a first probing function associated with the first thread-local hash map (¶ [0028], building relatively small local hash tables or hash maps. The local hash maps are private to the respective thread that produces it. Accordingly, other threads may not see or access the local hash map produced by a given thread);
subsequent to the performing the first probing function, determining, based on the first thread-local hash map, an index cardinality associated with the input table (¶ [0027], the cardinality of an input set of keys that have thus far been inserted in the hash map. In some respects, the key--index mapping may be used to share a single hash map among different columns);
determining whether the index cardinality exceeds a threshold (¶ [0034], The statistical data may indicate when the local hash map should be declared full (independent of an actual load factor));
in response to the determination that the index cardinality exceeds the threshold, performing a duplicate function associated with the second thread-local hash map (¶ [0038], copying all values to their final positions in the columns);
generating a second thread-local copy map based on the performing the [copy/duplicate] function (¶ [0038]); and
subsequent to the generating the second thread-local copy map, merging the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local copy map, thereby generating a merged hash map (¶ [0029], local hash maps including the intermediate results may be merged to obtain a global result by concurrently executing merger threads).
While Bensberg discloses copying, Bensberg does not explicitly disclose duplicating function; however, Lacapra discloses duplicating function (¶ [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lacapra into Bensberg to efficiently update data that corresponds to the same storage provider and storage area as before.
Regarding claim 2, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the determination that the index cardinality does not exceed the threshold, performing a second probing function associated with the second thread-local hash map; and subsequent to the performing the second probing function, merging the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local hash map, thereby generating the merged hash map (¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented of claim 1, the index cardinality for the input table comprises: a first number of first entries in the first thread-local hash map divided by a second number of second entries in the input table, wherein the second entries are associated with the first thread-local hash map (Bensberg, ¶ [0022], number that is an integer power of a chosen base integer).
Regarding claim 4, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented of claim 1, wherein the performing the duplicate function associated with the second thread-local hash map comprises: refraining from performing a probing function associated with the second thread-local hash map (¶ [0044], Each entry of the bigger table hash maps probed against or compared to the merged hash maps of the smaller table).
Regarding claim 5, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented of claim 1, wherein the merging the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local copy map comprises: storing a plurality of pointers in the merged hash map, wherein each pointer is associated with the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local copy map (Lacapra, ¶ [0292], Each of the table entries stores a pointer to the server node associated with that entry).
Regarding claim 6, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented of claim 1, wherein the generating the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local hash map comprises: separating the input table into disjoint partitions (¶ [0030], sizes of the partitions may relate to or even be the size of a memory unit);
assigning each partition to an execution thread (¶ [0030]); and
generating the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local hash map including key-index pairs ¶ [0027], hash tables that store key--value pairs).
Regarding claim 7, Bensberg in view of Lacapra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first thread-local hash map and the second thread-local hash map are configured to keep track of intermediate result data (Bensberg, ¶ [0022], may create an index hash map 220 to keep track of intermediate result data).
Regarding claims 8-14, see discussion of claims 1-7 for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claims 15-20, see discussion of claims 1-6 for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights