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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
Priority
The present application is a continuation of U.S. App. No. 18/428,583, entitled "STATEMENT-LEVEL INSTEAD-OF DATABASE TRIGGERS," filed January 31, 2024, now U.S. Patent 12,405,947.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims 1 recites a “method for receiving a first database operation statement. . ..; storing a trigger function call . . . ; and executing, by the computer system, the stored trigger function calls. . . .” the claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A Prong One:
"executing the stored trigger function calls" as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0017] where one can mentally evaluate to perform execution to the stored trigger function calls.
These imitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "processor" or “computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “executing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, “executing the first database operation statement.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "receiving a first database operation statement " and " storing a trigger function call.” These limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The limitations "receiving” and “storing” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 (program product and system) are rejected for the same rational under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, respectively, merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “initializing the function call data structure prior to storing the trigger function call in the function call data structure”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 9 and 16, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “resetting the function call data structure after executing the stored trigger function calls”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 10 and 17, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “executing the stored trigger function calls includes executing a set of function calls; and the set of function calls includes a function call for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view, for each database view specified by the first database operation statement”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 11 and 18, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “trigger information associated with the statement-level database triggers defined for the first database operation statement”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 12 and 19, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “for the given database view, storing a reference table row in a reference table data structure for each row of the given database view targeted by the first database operation statement”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 20, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 16. The claim recites the additional limitation of “initializing the reference table data structure”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 14, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide general computer implementation.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 – 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 – 20 of Application No. 17/700,008, now U.S. Patent 12,050,608. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the co-pending application and is covered by the co-pending application since the co-pending application and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant application 19/314,400
Co-pending Application 18/428,5834
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a first database operation statement specifying performance of a particular database operation on one or more database views of selected data from a database, wherein a given database trigger of one or more statement-level database triggers is executable to initiate execution of at least one trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on a specified database view of the one or more database views;
for a given database view of the one or more database views, storing a trigger function call in a function call data structure for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view; and
executing, by the computer system, the stored trigger function calls instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising initializing the function call data structure prior to storing the trigger function call in the function call data structure.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising resetting the function call data structure after executing the stored trigger function calls.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein:
executing the stored trigger function calls includes executing a set of function calls; and
the set of function calls includes a function call for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view, for each database view specified by the first database operation statement.
The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the computer system, trigger information associated with the statement-level database triggers defined for the first database operation statement.
The method of claim 1, further comprising, for the given database view, storing a reference table row in a reference table data structure for each row of the given database view targeted by the first database operation statement.
The method of claim 6, further comprising initializing the reference table data structure.
8. A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are capable of causing a computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first database operation statement specifying performance of a particular database operation on one or more database views of selected data from a database, wherein a given database trigger of one or more statement-level database triggers is executable to initiate execution of at least one trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on a specified database view of the one or more database views;
for a given database view of the one or more database views, storing a trigger function call in a function call data structure for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view; and
executing the stored trigger function calls instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement.
9. The computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise initializing the function call data structure prior to storing the trigger function call in the function call data structure.
10. The computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise resetting the function call data structure after executing the stored trigger function calls.
11. The computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein:
executing the stored trigger function calls includes executing a set of function calls; and
the set of function calls includes a function call for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view, for each database view specified by the first database operation statement.
12. The computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise storing trigger information associated with the statement-level database triggers defined for the first database operation statement.
13. The computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise, for the given database view, storing a reference table row in a reference table data structure for each row of the given database view targeted by the first database operation statement.
14. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise initializing the reference table data structure.
15. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first database operation statement specifying performance of a particular database operation on one or more database views of selected data from a database, wherein a given database trigger of one or more statement-level database triggers is executable to initiate execution of at least one trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on a specified database view of the one or more database views;
for a given database view of the one or more database views, storing a trigger function call in a function call data structure for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view; and
executing the stored trigger function calls instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise initializing the function call data structure prior to storing the trigger function call in the function call data structure.
17. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise resetting the function call data structure after executing the stored trigger function calls.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein:
executing the stored trigger function calls includes executing a set of function calls; and
the set of function calls includes a function call for each statement-level database trigger defined for the first database operation statement and the given database view, for each database view specified by the first database operation statement.
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise storing trigger information associated with the statement-level database triggers defined for the first database operation statement.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise, for the given database view, storing a reference table row in a reference table data structure for each row of the given database view targeted by the first database operation statement.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by the computer system, a first database operation statement specifying performance of the particular database operation on the first database view; identifying, by the computer system, a set of first target rows, within the first database view, targeted by the first database operation statement;
storing, by a computer system, trigger information associated with a first statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one first trigger instruction for a database instead of performing a particular database operation, on a first database view of selected data from the database, specified by a database operation statement;
receiving, by the computer system, a first database operation statement specifying performance of the particular database operation on the first database view; identifying, by the computer system, a set of first target rows, within the first database view, targeted by the first database operation statement;
generating, by the computer system, a first reference table associated with the first database view, wherein the first reference table includes rows corresponding to the first target rows; and
executing, by the computer system, the first statement-level database trigger instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement, wherein executing the first statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table and wherein a single execution of the first statement-level database trigger is performed instead of execution of the first database operation statement for multiple of the first target rows.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes both original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation and updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, by the computer system, trigger information associated with a second statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one second trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on the first database view; and executing, by the computer system, the second statement-level database trigger instead of executing the first database operation statement, wherein executing the second statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first database operation statement further specifies a second database view of selected data from the database, and further comprising: identifying, by the computer system, a set of second target rows, within the second database view, targeted by the first database operation statement; and generating, by the computer system, a second reference table associated with the second database view, wherein the second reference table includes rows corresponding to the second target rows.
7. A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are capable of causing a computer system to perform operations comprising: storing trigger information associated with a first statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one first trigger instruction for a database instead of performing a particular database operation, on a first database view of selected data from the database, specified by a database operation statement; receiving a first database operation statement specifying performance of the particular database operation on the first database view; identifying a set of first target rows, within the first database view, targeted by the first database operation statement; generating a first reference table associated with the first database view, wherein the first reference table includes rows corresponding to the first target rows; and executing the first statement-level database trigger instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement, wherein executing the first statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table and wherein a single execution of the first statement-level database trigger is performed instead of execution of the first database operation statement for multiple of the first target rows.
8. The computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation.
9. The computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
10. The computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes both original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation and updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
11. The computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise: storing trigger information associated with a second statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one second trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on the first database view; and executing the second statement-level database trigger instead of executing the first database operation statement, wherein executing the second statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table.
12. The computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the first database operation statement further specifies a second database view of selected data from the database, and the operations further comprise: identifying a set of second target rows, within the second database view, targeted by the first database operation statement; and generating a second reference table associated with the second database view, wherein the second reference table includes rows corresponding to the second target rows.
13. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising: storing trigger information associated with a first statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one first trigger instruction for a database instead of performing a particular database operation, on a first target arrangement, into rows and columns, of data from the database, specified by a database operation statement; receiving a first database operation statement specifying performance of the particular database operation on the first target arrangement; identifying a set of first target rows, within the first target arrangement, targeted by the first database operation statement; generating a first reference table associated with the first target arrangement, wherein the first reference table includes rows corresponding to the first target rows; and executing the first statement-level database trigger instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement, wherein executing the first statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table and wherein a single execution of the first statement-level database trigger is performed instead of execution of the first database operation statement for multiple of the first target rows.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the first target arrangement is a database view specified by a query of the database.
15. The system of claim 13, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation.
16. The system of claim 13, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
17. The system of claim 13, wherein a given row, in the first reference table, corresponding to a given first target row includes both original data values reflecting a state of the given first target row without performing the particular database operation and updated data values reflecting a state of the given first target row if the particular database operation is performed.
18. The system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: storing trigger information associated with a second statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one second trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on the first target arrangement; and executing the second statement-level database trigger instead of executing the first database operation statement, wherein executing the second statement-level database trigger includes accessing the first reference table.
19. The system of claim 13, wherein the first database operation statement further specifies a second target arrangement of rows and columns from the database, and the operations further comprise: identifying a set of second target rows, within the second target arrangement, targeted by the first database operation statement; and generating a second reference table associated with the second target arrangement, wherein the second reference table includes rows corresponding to the second target rows.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise: storing trigger information associated with a second statement-level database trigger executable to initiate execution of at least one second trigger instruction for the database instead of performing the particular database operation on the second target arrangement; and executing the second statement-level database trigger instead of executing the first database operation statement, wherein executing the second statement-level database trigger includes accessing the second reference table.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of co-pending application No. 17/700,008, now U.S. Patent 12,050,608. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of corresponding language that recites virtually all of the same elements and functions claimed in the claim 1 of instant application and claim 1 of the copending invention, e.g., “executing, by the computer system, the stored trigger function calls instead of executing, rather than before or after executing, the first database operation statement..”
The claimed differences would be obvious to a programmer of ordinary skill because the instant claims are merely broader and/or alternate variations of the claims recited in the co-pending application.
Because the instant claims merely add/modify the additional elements from the set of elements and functions claimed in the parent application, such modifications would be readily apparent to a programmer of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit/add/modify the additional elements of claim 1 to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before.
It would have been obvious to modify instant claims in order enable utilizing available cloud resources of a cloud infrastructure such as computing resources, storage resources, network resources to facilitate operations, allowing access, storage, and/or manipulation of information and users of service to develop, run, and manage applications, and ensuring transactional consistency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jain (USPBPUB 2017/0116321), which discloses in an approach, a database management system is configured in a manner that allows all pluggable databases within a cluster to be treated, from the perspective of a user, as though stored on a single container database, even when the pluggable databases are distributed across a plurality of container databases. When a command is received by a database server that is to be executed on all or a subset of the pluggable databases within the cluster, the database inspects mapping information replicated on all container databases within the cluster by a cluster synchronization server to determine which container databases store pluggable databases implicated by the command. The command is then forwarded to the database servers responsible for the determined container databases for execution. As a result, the commands issued by the user can be agnostic in regard to the actual location of the pluggable databases within the cluster.
Chaliparambil (USPGPUB 2013/0007069), which discloses creating a materialized view table based on physical tables of a database. Records altered in the physical tables by messages during an interval of time are identified using a message pipeline of messages that manage changes to a database. The materialized view table is updated to reflect the records that are altered by the messages during the interval of time by deleting rows from the materialized view table and re-evaluating the rows that are deleted from the materialized view table against the physical tables of the database.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 26, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights