CTNF 19/285,848 CTNF 89924 DETAILED ACTION Remarks This Office Action is in response to the application 19/285848 filed on 30 July 2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As to claim(s) 14-20, these claims recite a “database system” comprising a “computing system” and a “storage system.” The term “system” has numerous different significations in the computing field, including the following: “In computing the word is freely used to refer to all kinds of combinations of hardware, software, data and other information, procedures, and human activities 1 .” In addition, Applicant's specification states the following: “The multiple functional units may be implemented based on software , hardware, or a combination of software and hardware” (see Applicant’s published disclosure, U.S. PGPub. No. 20250355849 A1, paragraph 0017, emphasis added). Therefore, the claim(s) encompass software per se. “Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment” and is not patent eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.03. As such, the claim(s) are not limited to statutory subject matter and are therefore non-statutory. In order to overcome the software per se rejection(s), the Examiner recommends amending the claim(s) to recite a processor coupled to a memory. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As to claims 1, 8, and 14, these claims recite a database. The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed database other than specifying it as using “hybrid row-column storage deployment mode or a row-column storage separation deployment mode.” The following definitions of the term “database” help clarify the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this term: “a usually large collection of data organized especially for rapid search and retrieval 2 ” “A collection of data arranged for ease and speed of search and retrieval. 3 ” "A database is an organized collection of structured information, or data, typically stored electronically in a computer system 4 ." "A database is an organized collection of information that can be searched, sorted, and updated. This data is often stored electronically in a computer system called a database management system (DBMS) 5 ." Notably, a database is defined as “typically” or “often” being stored electronically, implying that it is not necessarily so. These definitions make clear that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “database” encompasses an organized collection of data even if not stored electronically . Hence, the BRI of the term “database” encompasses an organized collection of data written out on pieces of paper by a human, for example. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can compose a simple database that utilizes hybrid row-column storage or row-column storage separation in the manner claimed. These claims recite determining an execution plan. Performing determination of an execution plan in the manner recited in these claims amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement. A human can mentally perform this evaluation/judgement with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite processing a database task for the target database based on the execution plan. For the simple database encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human can perform a database task (e.g. reading a data record, adding a data record, removing a data record, etc.) in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following: a) “receiving, by the computing system, a deployment mode selection instruction for a target database, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction instructs to use a hybrid row-column storage deployment mode or a row-column storage separation deployment mode for the target database in the storage system” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 8 and 14); b) a “database system” comprising a “computing system” and a “storage system” (claims 1 and 14); and c) a “computer device” comprising “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” (claim 8). Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (b) and (c) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (b) and (c) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible. As to dependent claims 2, 9, and 15, these claims recite certain details of determining the execution plan. These limitations remain mentally performable abstract idea limitations for reasons similar to those set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims. These claims also recite certain storage modules that utilize certain storage formats. This amounts to generic computing components performing generic computing functions and cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible. As to dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, and 16-18, these claims recite certain details of data storage. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to dependent claims 6, 13, and 19, these claims recite use of an analytical processing engine deployed in a cloud environment. These limitations amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As to dependent claims 7 and 20, these claims recite claims recite displaying first and second options on an interface of the database and detecting selection of the first or second options. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Arye et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210034586 A1, hereinafter referred to as Arye ) . As to claim 1, Arye teaches a method, applied to a database system, wherein the database system comprises a computing system and a storage system ( Arye Fig. 1: database system 110 comprising data store 145) , and the method comprises: receiving, by the computing system, a deployment mode selection instruction for a target database, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction instructs to use a hybrid row-column storage deployment mode ( Arye title: a database system that uses hybrid row/column storage representation; and see Arye para. 0051-0059: description of deployment of hybrid row/column storage database) or a row-column storage separation deployment mode for the target database in the storage system; determining, by the computing system based on the deployment mode selection instruction, an execution plan corresponding to the target database, wherein the execution plan matches a deployment mode indicated by the deployment mode selection instruction (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: query planner 425 determines query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) ; and processing, by the computing system in the storage system, a database task for the target database based on the execution plan (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: execution engine 435 executes the query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) . As to claim 8, Arye teaches a computer device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a computer program, and the computer program comprises program instructions; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to invoke the computer program, to implement operations comprising: ( Arye para. 0447: the invention is embodied as computer hardware comprising a computer processor executing computer program code provided by a computer-readable medium) , receiving a deployment mode selection instruction for a target database, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction instructs to use a hybrid row-column storage deployment mode ( Arye title: a database system that uses hybrid row/column storage representation; and see Arye para. 0051-0059: description of deployment of hybrid row/column storage database) or a row-column storage separation deployment mode for the target database in the memory; determining, based on the deployment mode selection instruction, an execution plan corresponding to the target database, wherein the execution plan matches a deployment mode indicated by the deployment mode selection instruction (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: query planner 425 determines query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) ; and processing a database task for the target database based on the execution plan (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: execution engine 435 executes the query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) . As to claim 14, Arye teaches a database system, comprising: a computing system; and a storage system, configured to store data ( Arye Fig. 1: database system 110 comprising data store 145) ; and wherein the computing system is configured to invoke the storage system to implement operations comprising: receiving a deployment mode selection instruction for a target database, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction instructs to use a hybrid row-column storage deployment mode ( Arye title: a database system that uses hybrid row/column storage representation; and see Arye para. 0051-0059: description of deployment of hybrid row/column storage database) or a row-column storage separation deployment mode for the target database in the storage system; determining, based on the deployment mode selection instruction, an execution plan corresponding to the target database, wherein the execution plan matches a deployment mode indicated by the deployment mode selection instruction (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: query planner 425 determines query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) ; and processing, by the computing system in the storage system, a database task for the target database based on the execution plan (see Arye para. 0303, 0351-0352, 0427; and Fig. 4A: execution engine 435 executes the query execution plans for the hybrid row/column storage database) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arye et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210034586 A1, hereinafter referred to as Arye ) in view of Bostic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170091327 A1, hereinafter referred to as Bostic ) . As to claim 7, Arye does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: displaying, by the computing system, a first option and a second option on a deployment mode selection interface of the target database, wherein the first option indicates the hybrid row-column storage deployment mode, and the second option indicates the row-column storage separation deployment mode; and when a selection operation on the first option is detected, determining, by the computing system, that the deployment mode selection instruction is received, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction indicates the hybrid row-column storage deployment mode. However, Bostic teaches further comprising: displaying, by the computing system, a first option and a second option on a deployment mode selection interface of the target database, wherein the first option indicates the hybrid row-column storage deployment mode, and the second option indicates the row-column storage separation deployment mode ( Bostic para. 0016 and 0089: selection between column-store format and row-store format for a database deployment) ; and when a selection operation on the first option is detected, determining, by the computing system, that the deployment mode selection instruction is received, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction indicates the hybrid row-column storage deployment mode ( Bostic para. 0016 and 0089: selection between column-store format and row-store format for a database deployment) ; or when a selection operation on the second option is detected, determining, by the computing system, that the deployment mode selection instruction is received, wherein the deployment mode selection instruction indicates the row-column storage separation deployment mode ( Bostic para. 0016 and 0089: selection between column-store format and row-store format for a database deployment) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arye to include the teachings of Bostic because it allows selecting database format based on a variety of data characteristics, ensuring that the selected storage format provides optimal performance ( Bostic para. 0033 and 0089). As to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 7 above. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm. 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 on (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. /Umar Mian/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 2 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 3 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 4 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 5 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 6 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 7 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 8 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 9 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 10 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 11 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 12 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/285,848 Page 13 Art Unit: 2163 1 Daintith, John, and Edmund Wright. "system." A Dictionary of Computing . : Oxford University Press, , 2008. Oxford Reference . Date Accessed 13 Jun. 2026 <https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234004.001.0001/acref-9780199234004-e-5243>. 2 “Database.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/database. Accessed 9 Jun. 2026. 3 “Database.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language , Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. Accessed 9 Jun. 2026. 4 "What Is a Database?" Published 4 Nov 2020 by Oracle.com. Accessed 9 June 2026 from https://www.oracle.com/database/what-is-database/ 5 "What Is a Database?" Published 1 Dec 2025 by Coursera.org. Accessed 9 June 2026 from https://www.coursera.org/articles/what-is-database
Prosecution Insights