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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21of Patent No. 12.430.335 B2. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12.430.335 B2 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. xxx claim 1
A method for improving cache efficiency, comprising:
determining a cachability relevance score for each query node of a plurality of query nodes from a semantic knowledge graph;
selecting at least one cacheable query node of the plurality of query nodes based on the cachability relevance score of the at least one cacheable query node;
storing in a cache a result of executing a query generated based on the at least one cacheable query node; and
generating a query execution plan based on the at least one cacheable query node, wherein the generated query execution plan includes at least one instruction for query execution using the stored result; and executing the generated query execution plan.
A method for improving cache efficiency, comprising:
selecting at least one cacheable query
node of a plurality of query nodes from a semantic knowledge graph, the selecting being based on a cachability relevance score of the at least one cacheable query node;
storing a result of executing a query generated based on the at least one cacheable query node in a cache; and
generating a query execution plan based on the at least one cacheable query
node, wherein the generated query
execution plan includes at least one instruction for query execution using the stored result, wherein the semantic knowledge graph is generated by: receiving a plurality of events, wherein the plurality of events includes a plurality of queries, wherein each event of the plurality of events is related to an interaction with at least one data source; parsing each event of the plurality of received events into a plurality of objects; determining for each of the plurality of events, a relationship between two objects of the plurality of objects; generating the semantic knowledge graph based on the determined relationships, the semantic knowledge graph including a plurality of query nodes and a plurality of edges, wherein each query node corresponds to a respective object of the plurality of objects, wherein each query node is connected to another query node of the plurality of query nodes by one of the plurality of edges, wherein each edge represents a strength of relationship between the two nodes connected by the edge;
repeating the receiving, parsing, determining, and generating so as to cause the semantic knowledge graph to be updated continually over time as events occur; and assigning a score to each edge, wherein the score assigned to each edge indicates a weight of the edge, wherein the score assigned to each edge is determined based on a number of appearances of the relationship represented by the edge in the parsed plurality of events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowed. (if rewritten to overcome the rejection under obvious double patenting and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims)
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1-23, Szabo et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,975,025 B1) discloses determining a cachability relevance score for each content or object (i.e., “The content object may comprise a link to another content object. For example, the content object may include a URL link to an HTML document. A cachability measure for the link may be determined based on cachability criteria, including, but not limited to: whether a plurality of previous requests for the link returned the other content object, an annotation of the link in a link map, a probability of traversing the link by users of a website, a network metric, an authorization of a user requesting the link, a time to live metric, or the like. In one embodiment, the cachability measure is determined as a weighted sum of probabilities of a plurality of cachability criteria. A prefetchability measure may then be determined and/or adjusted. In one embodiment, the prefetchability measure may be determined as a weighted sum or probabilities of the cachability measure and/or another factor relating to the link.”(col. 3, lines 6-22)). Further, Love et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,836,183 B1) discloses determining a relevance score for each query node of a plurality of query nodes from a semantic knowledge graph (“the clustered graph may include a relatively large number of nodes, each node corresponding to some entity, document, or other item. In some embodiments, the graph may include more than 1000 nodes, more than 5000 nodes, and in many commercially relevant implementations, as many as 100,000 nodes or more. In some embodiments, the edges of the graph may also be obtained, and each edge may connect a respective pair of the nodes. In some embodiments, the edges are weighted edges, with scores indicating the strength of relationships between the nodes”(col. 5, lines 55-65) and “some embodiments may obtain a graph through other techniques, like querying a relational database for a collection of items and information about relationships there between. Query results may be clustered with the graph-clustering algorithms described above. In some cases, the clustered graph may include a relatively large number of clusters, like 10 or more, 15 or more, or 100 or more, and each of the clusters may include a relatively large number of nodes associated with that cluster, like more than 5, more than 50, more than 500, or more than 5000 in many commercially relevant use cases.” (col. 25, lines 40-44)); storing in a cache a result of executing a query (i.e., “Various embodiments may further include receiving, sending, or storing instructions or data implemented in accordance with the foregoing description upon a computer-accessible medium. Accordingly, the present invention may be practiced with other computer system configurations.”(col. 35, lines 32-33)); generating a query execution plan based on the at least one query node, wherein the generated query execution plan includes at least one instruction for query execution using the stored result (i.e., “Processes, such as logic flows, described herein may be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating corresponding output. Pr”(col. 33, lines 12-14) and (i.e., “Various embodiments may further include receiving, sending, or storing instructions or data implemented in accordance with the foregoing description upon a computer-accessible medium. Accordingly, the present invention may be practiced with other computer system configurations.”(col. 35, lines 32-33))); and executing the generated query execution plan (i.e., “Processes, such as logic flows, described herein may be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating corresponding output. Pr”(col. 33, lines 12-14)).but combine Szabo et al or Szabo et al, or single teaches determining a cachability relevance score for each query node of a plurality of query nodes from a semantic knowledge graph, selecting at least one cacheable query node of the plurality of query nodes based on the cachability relevance score of the at least one cacheable query node, storing in a cache a result of executing a query generated based on the at least one cacheable query node.
Citation of Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent to Omoigui discloses System and Method for Knowledge retrieval, Management, Delivery and Presentation, U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191716 A1.
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