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 1-21 are pending.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Each of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites a mental process in the limitations of “…author a chart… select a target table for the chart… specify one or more chart attributes; execute a chart query against the target table; when the target table is the external table:
create an instance… translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL)… fetch one or more records from the external data source… filter the fetched records by applying search expressions; send the filtered results…when the target table is the regular table:
retrieve data from a record block… present the query results in the chart”. These limitations could be done mentally based on gathered information. Mental process is directed to one of the abstract ideas groups as set forth by Prong One in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Th claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements (e.g. table information, data, record block) are directed to types of information materials, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims.
Hence, the claims do not include additional elements or the combination of the elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate the judicial exception into practical application according to Prong Two in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because the claimed elements or their combination do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, in view of Step 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it is determined that the computing elements (such as a processor, a memory, external data source, SQL, API, application server, in-memory database) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 each further recites additional computing elements (such as a public cloud, an external system, or an external disk) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 each further recites additional computing elements (e.g. Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface) in the claims amount to no more than usage of generic computing components in a generic computing field, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 each further recites the mental process include addition limitations of “…filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server”, which could be done mentally based on the gathered information.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 each further recites the mental process include addition limitations of “…merge results from the external table with results from the in-memory database…”, which could be done mentally based on the gathered information. Also,
the claims recite additional elements (e.g. composite presentation in the chart) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 each further recites the mental process include addition limitations of “…create the instance of the external data source class by instantiating a connector configured to translate chart queries …”, which could be done mentally based on the gathered information. Also, the additional computing elements (e.g. a connector, SQL queries) in the claims amount to no more than usage of generic computing components in a generic computing field, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known. Plus, the claims recite additional elements (e.g. external data source class) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 21 each further recites the mental process include addition limitations of “…execute at least one of aggregation, filtering, or join operations at the external data source prior to fetching the one or more records”, which could be done mentally based on the gathered information.
Thus, for at least the reasonings above, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,430,336 (Application No. 17/956,362).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to similar invention with similar limitations as demonstrated in the table below:
Claims 1-7 of instant application recite similar limitations as claim 8-21, hence claims 1-7 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below.
Similarly, claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,430,336 recite similar to limitations as claims 1-4 and 9-12. Hence claims 5-8 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,430,336
1. A computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:
author a chart;
select a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source;
specify one or more chart attributes;
execute a chart query against the target table;
when the target table is the external table:
create an instance of an external data source class;
translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information;
fetch one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL;
filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions; and
send the filtered results to an application server;
6. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to create the instance of the external data source class by instantiating a connector configured to translate chart queries into SQL queries.
when the target table is the regular table:
retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database; and
present the query results in the chart.
5. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to merge results from the external table with results from the in-memory database for composite presentation in the chart.
2. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of: a public cloud, an external system, or an external disk.
3. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to fetch the one or more records from the external data source using an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface.
4. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least one of aggregation, filtering, or join operations at the external data source prior to fetching the one or more records.
5. A computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:
open, by the processor, a chart;
execute, by the processor, a chart query on the chart, the chart query having a target table, wherein executing the chart query comprises:
send, by the processor, the chart query to a query engine;
execute, by the processor, the chart query; and
return, by the processor, one or more query results;
8. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein when executing the chart query for the external table, the apparatus is configured to:
create, by the processor, an instance of an external data source class;
translate, by the processor, the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL);
fetch, by the processor, one or more records from the external data source over an API using SQL;
filter, by the processor, results by applying one or more column search expressions; and
send, by the processor, the results to an application server.
6. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein when loading the external data from the external data source, the apparatus is configured to: use, by the processor, an Application Programming Interface for accessing a database.
loading, by the processor and based on the one or more query results, external data from an external data source to a record that is external to an in-memory database, for a target table that is an external table;
loading, by the processor and based on the one or more query results, data from a record block stored in the in-memory database, for a target table that is a regular table; and
creating, by the processor, a composite chart comprising the loaded external data and the loaded data from the record block.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the external data source is at least one of a public cloud, an external system and an external disk.
As demonstrated by the mappings in the table above, U.S. Patent No 12,430,336 discloses or renders obvious all the features of the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,443,598 (Application No. 17/943,657).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to similar invention with similar limitations as demonstrated in the table below:
Claims 1-7 of instant application recite similar limitations as claim 8-21, hence claims 1-7 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below.
Similarly, claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,443,598 recite similar to limitations as claims 1-4 and 9-12. Hence claims 5-8 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,443,598
1. A computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:
author a chart;
select a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source;
specify one or more chart attributes;
execute a chart query against the target table;
when the target table is the external table:
create an instance of an external data source class;
translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information;
fetch one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL;
filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions; and
send the filtered results to an application server;
when the target table is the regular table:
retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database; and
present the query results in the chart.
6. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to create the instance of the external data source class by instantiating a connector configured to translate chart queries into SQL queries.
5. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to merge results from the external table with results from the in-memory database for composite presentation in the chart.
2. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of: a public cloud, an external system, or an external disk.
3. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to fetch the one or more records from the external data source using an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface.
4. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least one of aggregation, filtering, or join operations at the external data source prior to fetching the one or more records.
5. A computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:
open, by the processor, a workbook;
execute, by the processor, a workbook query on the workbook, the workbook query having a target table, wherein when executing the workbook query, the apparatus is configured to:
open, by the processor, a worksheet from the workbook;
send, by the processor, a worksheet query to a query engine;
execute, by the processor, the worksheet query on the record that is external to the in-memory database; and
return, by the processor, one or more query results;
8. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein when executing the worksheet query for the external table, the apparatus is configured to:
create, by the processor, an instance of an external data source class;
translate, by the processor, the worksheet query into Structured Query Language (SQL):
fetch, by the processor, one or more records from the external data source over an Application Programming Interface (API) using SQL;
filter, by the processor, results by applying one or more column search expressions; and
send, by the processor, the results to an application server.
6. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein when loading the external data from the external data source, the apparatus is configured to: use, by the processor, an Application Programming Interface for accessing a database.
load, by the processor and based on the one or more query results, external data from an external data source to the record that is external to the in-memory database, for a target table that is an external table; and
load, by the processor and based on the one or more query results, data from a record block stored in the in-memory database, for a target table that is a regular table, and
create, by the processor, a composite worksheet comprising the loaded external data and the loaded data from the record block.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the external data source is at least one of a public cloud, an external system and an external disk.
As demonstrated by the mappings in the table above, U.S. Patent No 12,443,598 discloses or renders obvious all the features of the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 19/333,787 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to similar invention with similar limitations as demonstrated in the table below:
Claims 1-7 of instant application recite similar limitations as claim 8-21, hence claims 1-7 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below.
Instant Application
Application No. 19/333,787
1. A computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:
author a chart;
select a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source;
specify one or more chart attributes;
execute a chart query against the target table;
when the target table is the external table:
create an instance of an external data source class;
translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information;
fetch one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL;
filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions; and
send the filtered results to an application server;
when the target table is the regular table:
retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database; and
present the query results in the chart.
2. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of: a public cloud, an external system, or an external disk.
3. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to fetch the one or more records from the external data source using an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface.
4. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server.
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to merge results from the external table with results from the in-memory database for composite presentation in the chart.
6. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to create the instance of the external data source class by instantiating a connector configured to translate chart queries into SQL queries.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least one of aggregation, filtering, or join operations at the external data source prior to fetching the one or more records.
1. A system comprising:
a data center including a data server and an application server communicatively coupled with one another;
the data server comprising:
an external table schema coupled to external table/external records;
an in-memory database configured to store regular tables; and
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the in-memory database of the data server is configured to store regular tables distinct from the external table/external records.
one or more interfaces configured to access a plurality of external sources;
wherein the data center is in two-way communication with the plurality of external sources; and
a query engine operable to handle queries directed to tables in the data server, the query engine being configured to:
12. The system of claim 10, wherein, when the target table is an external table, the query engine is configured to translate a worksheet or workbook query into SQL and fetch records from the external data source over the API interface.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the public cloud hosts the external data source and the data server accesses the external data source via the API interface.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the data server accesses the external system via the API access.
access data from the in-memory database when a target table is a regular table;
access external data via the external table/external records when the target table is an external table; and
10. The system of claim 2, wherein the query engine is configured to access data in a regular table from the in-memory database and to access data for an external table via the external table/external records, and to return a query result to the application server.
return corresponding query results to the application server.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of external sources comprises at least one of a public cloud, an external system, and a storage/disk; and wherein:
the public cloud hosts an external data source accessible via an API interface for accessing a database;
the external system exposes a REST API accessible via an API access; and
the storage/disk provides data in a formatted file.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the API interface comprises Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) implemented over a secure socket layer (SSL) connection.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the query engine is further configured to apply column search expressions to filter down results prior to sending the results to the application server.
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the application server is configured to receive the corresponding query results from the data server and provide the corresponding query results to one or more client-facing resources.
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the formatted file comprises at least one of a parquet file or a flat file.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the external table schema is configured to contribute to the external table/external records within the data server.
The system of claim 2, wherein the data center is configured for two-way communication with each of the public cloud, the external system, and the storage/disk.
15. The system of claim 1, wherein the external table schema is linkable to an external data source that is accessed by ODBC.
16. The system of claim 2, wherein the API interface and API access are each configured to securely communicate between the external table/external records and a corresponding external source.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein, when the target table is an external table, the query engine is further configured to cause execution of filters, aggregations, or joins at the external data source prior to returning results to the data server.
As demonstrated by the mappings in the table above, Application No. 19/333,787 discloses or renders obvious all the features of the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 each recites the limitations “the filter results” in the send step and "the query results” in the present step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims rendering the claims being indefinite.
Each of the dependent claims not specifically addressed is being rejected for incorporate of the deficiency of respective independent claim stated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 each recites limitation of “filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server”.
The cited limitation is similar to limitations “filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions; and send the filtered results to an application server”, which indicate that the more column search expressions application is being performed before transmitting the filtered to the application server since only the filtered result is being send (i.e. transmitted) to the application server.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al (Pub No. US 2021/0397626, hereinafter Griffith) in view of Oppenheimer et al (Pub No. US 2013/0124957, hereinafter Oppenheimer).
Griffith and Oppenheimer are cited in the IDS filed on 10/29/2025.
With respect to claim 1, Griffith discloses a computing apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a processor (Fig 10); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Fig 10), configure the apparatus to:
author a chart ([0023], Fig 1: author a chart as represented at least by a table);
select a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source (the term “or” indicated option and only one of the listed is needed to read on the limitation; [0024-0026]: select a target table, and a table being at least an external data associated with an external data set correspond to the external data source);
specify one or more chart attributes (chart attribute is merely an attribute; [0026], Fig 1: specify at one or more attributes, e.g. table identifier);
execute a chart query against the target table ([0024-0028]: execute a chart query, such as a multi-table query);
when the target table is the external table:
create an instance of an external data source class (external data source class is merely a type of data, which rending an instance as merely a type of data; [0025-0028], Fig 5-6: create an instance of the external source class, e.g. an instance of a class in the graph, when the table is at the external data source represented by an external data set);
translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information ([0028], [0032-0033]: translate the query into a SQL query with table information represented by table attributes, as further described in [0027] );
fetch one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL ([0036-0037], Fig 4A-4B: obtain records represented by the data block from the external data set via API using SQL via data extraction);
filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions ([0029], [0039], [0057], Fig 4A-5 & 8: filter the records by apply the query expression with column identification as a subset relevant data is identified); and
send the filtered results to an application server ([0037-0038], [0058], Fig 5-8: sending the filter results to an application server that combine the results);and
present the query results in the chart ([0038], [0053], Fig 6 & 8: present the query result on the chart as represented by the table).
Griffith does not explicitly disclose when the target table is the regular table: retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database.
However, Oppenheimer discloses when the target table is the regular table: retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database ([0027-0029]: retrieve data from a in-memory database represented by data in the memory via in-memory multi-dimensional data analysis engine via loading data loading table data).
Since both Griffith and Oppenheimer are from the same field of endeavor as both are directed to chart management with respect to query processing, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings incorporate in-memory data retrieval of Oppenheimer into Griffith for workbook management as claimed. The motivation to combine is to optimizing data operation for different distributed datasets (Griffith, [0008]; Oppenheimer, [0001]).
With respect to claim 8, Griffith discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer (abstract, Fig 10), cause the computer to:
author a chart ([0023], Fig 1: author a chart as represented at least by a table);
select a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source (the term “or” indicated option and only one of the listed is needed to read on the limitation; [0024-0026]: select a target table, and a table being at least an external data associated with an external data set correspond to the external data source);
specify one or more chart attributes (chart attribute is merely an attribute; [0026], Fig 1: specify at one or more attributes, e.g. table identifier);
execute a chart query against the target table ([0024-0028]: execute a chart query, such as a multi-table query);
when the target table is the external table:
create an instance of an external data source class (external data source class is merely a type of data, which rending an instance as merely a type of data; [0025-0028], Fig 5-6: create an instance of the external source class, e.g. an instance of a class in the graph);
translate the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information ([0028], [0032-0033]: translate the query into a SQL query with table information represented by table attributes, as further described in [0027] );
fetch one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL ([0036-0037], Fig 4A-4B: obtain records represented by the data block from the external data set via API using SQL via data extraction);
filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions ([0029], [0039], [0057], Fig 4A-5 & 8: filter the records by apply the query expression with column identification as a subset relevant data is identified); and
send the filtered results to an application server ([0037-0038], [0058], Fig 5-8: sending the filter results to an application server that combine the results);and
present the query results in the chart ([0038], [0053], Fig 6 & 8: present the query result on the chart as represented by the table).
Griffith does not explicitly disclose when the target table is the regular table: retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database.
However, Oppenheimer discloses when the target table is the regular table: retrieve data from a record block stored in the in-memory database ([0027-0029]: retrieve data from a in-memory database represented by data in the memory via in-memory multi-dimensional data analysis engine via loading data loading table data).
Since both Griffith and Oppenheimer are from the same field of endeavor as both are directed to chart management with respect to query processing, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings incorporate in-memory data retrieval of Oppenheimer into Griffith for workbook management as claimed. The motivation to combine is to optimizing data operation for different distributed datasets (Griffith, [0008]; Oppenheimer, [0001]).
With respect to claim 15, Griffith discloses a computer-implemented method (abstract) comprising:
authoring, by a processor, a chart ([0023], Fig 1: author a chart as represented at least by a table);
selecting, by the processor, a target table for the chart, the target table being either a regular table stored in an in-memory database or an external table associated with an external data source (the term “or” indicated option and only one of the listed is needed to read on the limitation; [0024-0026]: select a target table, and a table being at least an external data associated with an external data set correspond to the external data source);
specifying, by the processor, one or more chart attributes (chart attribute is merely an attribute; [0026], Fig 1: specify at one or more attributes, e.g. table identifier);
executing, by the processor, a chart query against the target table ([0024-0028]: execute a chart query, such as a multi-table query);
when the target table is the external table:
creating, by the processor, an instance of an external data source class (external data source class is merely a type of data, which rending an instance as merely a type of data; [0025-0028], Fig 5-6: create an instance of the external source class, e.g. an instance of a class in the graph);
translating, by the processor, the chart query into Structured Query Language (SQL) along with table information ([0028], [0032-0033]: translate the query into a SQL query with table information represented by table attributes, as further described in [0027]);
fetching, by the processor, one or more records from the external data source over an application programming interface (API) using SQL ([0036-0037], Fig 4A-4B: obtain records represented by the data block from the external data set via API as described in [0078] using SQL via data extraction);
filtering, by the processor, the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions ([0029], [0039], [0057], Fig 4A-5 & 8: filter the records by apply the query expression with column identification as a subset relevant data is identified); and
sending, by the processor, the filtered results to an application server ([0037-0038], [0058], Fig 5-8: sending the filter results to an application server that combine the results); and
presenting, by the processor, the query results in the chart ([0038], [0053], Fig 6 & 8: present the query result on the chart as represented by the table).
Griffith does not explicitly disclose when the target table is the regular table: retrieving, by the processor, data from a record block stored in the in-memory database.
However, Oppenheimer discloses when the target table is the regular table: retrieving, by the processor, data from a record block stored in the in-memory database ([0027-0029]: retrieve data from a in-memory database represented by data in the memory via in-memory multi-dimensional data analysis engine via loading data loading table data).
Since both Griffith and Oppenheimer are from the same field of endeavor as both are directed to chart management with respect to query processing, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings incorporate in-memory data retrieval of Oppenheimer into Griffith for workbook management as claimed. The motivation to combine is to optimizing data operation for different distributed datasets (Griffith, [0008]; Oppenheimer, [0001]).
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further disclose wherein the external data source comprises at least one of: a public cloud, an external system, or an external disk (the limitation is directed to non-functional descriptive material as indicated by the term “is” and one of the elements being described is being to impact the claimed steps; Griffith, [0023], [0029], Fig 1-3; Oppenheimer, [00019], Fig 2: at least one of cloud, external source/disk that is accessible by the public).
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to fetch the one or more records from the external data source using an interface (Griffith, [0027-0028]; Oppenheimer, [0034]: fetch via obtaining external data from an interface).
Neither Griffith nor Oppenheimer explicitly disclose the interface is an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface.
However, the differences are only found in descriptive material and the Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface is merely an interface. All claimed steps would be performed the same regardless of whether the interface is an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface or not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any interface to fetch data from any external data source.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to filter the fetched records by applying one or more column search expressions before transmitting the filtered results to the application server (Griffith, [0029-0031], Fig 1 & 8; Oppenheimer, [0020], [0029], Fig 3: filter data using expression for specific columns before transom to the server for combining).
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further disclose wherein the application server is further configured to merge results from the external table with results from the in-memory database for composite presentation in the chart (Griffith, [0025], [0029-0031], Fig 1 & 8; Oppenheimer, [0020], [0027], [0029], Fig 3: merge data results from external and in-memory for combined table).
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further wherein the processor is further configured to create the instance of the external data source class by instantiating a connector configured to translate chart queries into SQL queries (Griffith, [0027-0028], [0033]; Oppenheimer, [0020], [0030]: instantiating a connector represented by a computing to translate the query/command to SQL queries for the respective data sets).
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 21, the combined teachings of Griffith and Oppenheimer further wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least one of aggregation, filtering, or join operations at the external data source prior to fetching the one or more records (Griffith, [0032], [0056],; Oppenheimer, [0020], [0030]: at least execute a filtering at the external data source prior to fetching as a subset of relevant data is being identified/filtered).
Examiner Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/MICHELLE N OWYANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights