`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223l3-l450
`www.uspto‘gov
`‘
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`90/008,648
`
`06/11/2007
`
`5826259
`
`6883/23
`
`4772
`
`27975
`
`7590
`
`03/05/2009
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST PA.
`1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
`PO. BOX 3791
`
`ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 03/05/2009
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`001
`
`IBM EX. 1024
`
`001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`wmwusptogov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`1
`
`MAI LE D
`
`William L. Anthony. Jr
`
`Om“ Hemngmn & SUtd'ffe
`1000 Marsh Road
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`IIAR 0 5 2009
`CENTRAL REEXAiwiima iUI\I UNIT
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/008 648.
`
`PATENT NO. 5826259.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL—465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`002
`
`002
`
`

`

`Control No.
`90/008,648
`
`Examiner
`VALEXANDER J. KOSOWSKI
`
`
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`5826259
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bD This action is made FINAL.
`alZ Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 11 Febmam 2009 .
`CE] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire g month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days. a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Part |
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`
`1. E] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`3. C]
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`
`
` Part II
`
`
`1a. K4 Claims 1-18 are subject to reexamination.
`1
`.
`
`2. E] Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`4. El
`
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims _ie not subject to reexamination.
`
`UCIDEIIZIEICIEI
`
`Claims _hav e been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims _are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims M are rejected.
`Claims _are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on _aLe acceptable.
`
`[3 approved (7b)I:] disapproved.
`has been (7a)
`The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)C] All b)l:| Some" c)I:] None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1[:] been received.
`
`2|:l not been received.
`
`3E] been filed in Application No.
`
`4:] been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`5E] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`b 2 3 4 5
`
`.
`
`6 7 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9. E] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle. 1935 CD.
`
`11, 453 0.6. 213.
` 10. C] Other:
`
`re- UCSICI‘
`uester ifthird o .
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20090303
`
`003
`
`003
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Reexamination
`
`1)
`
`I
`
`This is an ex parte reexamination of US. Patent No. RE40,520. Patent claims'l-18 are
`
`under” reexamination. This is a second non-final action in response to patent owner’s request for
`
`reconsideration. filed 2/1 1/09.
`
`Prior Art
`
`2)
`
`Claims 1-18 are reexamined on the basis of the following references:
`
`Teorey (A Logical Design Methodology...
`
`Kumpati (US. Pat 4, 774,661)
`
`Huber (US. Pat 4,918,593)
`
`Zloof (Query-by-Example: A Data Base Language...)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3)
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`4)
`
`Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Teorey (A Logical Design Methodology for Relational Databases. . .), further in view of Kumpati
`
`(US. Pat 4,774,661).
`
`Referring to claim 1, Teorey discloses a method comprising:
`
`004
`
`004
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`retrieving a specific relation type record defining said provided relation type from a
`
`relation definition table (Page 198 columns 1-2 and Page 205, Step 1.3, 'whereby relationships
`
`are defined in a relational database between entities and attributes);
`
`retrieving a specific relation instance record defining a relation of said provided relation
`
`type between said provided entity and said desired entity from a relation instance table
`
`corresponding to said specific relation type record (Figures 3 and 10, whereby stored information
`
`in table format relates two or more entities to each other, and Page 210 Section 3.1.3 whereby
`
`relationship relations are taught);
`
`retrieving a desired entity type record containing said desired entity type from an entity
`
`definition table, wherein said desired entity type record specifies a desired entity instance table
`
`associated with said desired entity type (Figure 13 and Table 1, whereby entity instance tables
`
`contain corresponding entity types that can be transformed into a relation, and Page 217 Step 3.2
`
`whereby a data dictionary is used for retrieving attributes of candidate relations);
`
`and retrieving said desired entity from said desired entity instance table (Page 198
`
`column 1, whereby examiner notes databases are utilized to retrieve desired data, and Page 205
`
`Step 1.2 and Page 208, Section 3.1, whereby entity instance tables contain a plurality of entity
`
`instance records and entities are transformed into entity relations).
`
`However, Teorey does not define the specifics of the use of a data dictionary for storing
`
`definitions of relation types.
`
`Kumpati teaches that definitions of relation types of entity sets are stored in a data
`
`dictionary (col. 5 lines 51-67 and col. 8 lines 35-59).
`
`005
`
`005
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize the aspects of a data dictionary in the invention taught by Teorey above since
`
`data dictionaries are well known in the art and provide an outline of how a system is structured,
`
`which allows identification of relationships among entities and provides simple access to actual
`
`data (Kumpati, col. 5 lines 60-67).
`
`Referring to claim 2, Teorey teaches that said relation instance record specifies said
`
`desired entity by said desired entity type and a desired record identifier (Page 203, Figure 4,
`
`whereby each relation instance record contains a record identifier that corresponds to the desired
`
`entity instance record, and Page 204, Step 1.1(5) whereby a record identifier can be a composite
`
`identifier composed of two or more attributes).
`
`Referring to claim 3, Teorey teaches wherein said desired entity is identified by said
`
`desired record identifier in said desired entity instance table (Page 216, Figure 13, whereby each
`
`entity instance record contains a record identifier that corresponds to a desired entity).
`
`Referring to claim 7, Teorey teaches retrieving a second desired entity type record
`
`containing a second desired entity type from said entity definition table, wherein said second
`
`desired entity type record specifies a second desired entity instance table associated with said
`
`second desired entity type (Figure 13 and Table 1, whereby entity instance tables contain
`
`corresponding entity. types that can be transformed into a relation, and Page 217 Step 3.2
`
`whereby a data dictionary is used for retrieving attributes of candidate relations, whereby
`
`examiner notes multiple records may be retrieved from a relational database).
`
`Referring to claim 8, Teorey teaches retrieving a third desired entity type record
`
`containing a third desired entity type from said entity definition table, wherein said third desired
`
`006
`
`006
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`entity type record specifies a third desired entity instance table associated with said third desired
`
`entity type ((Figure 13 and Table 1, whereby entity instance tables contain corresponding entity
`types that can be transformed into a relation, and Page 217 Step 3.2 whereby a data dictionary is
`
`used for retrieving attributes of candidate relations, whereby examiner notes multiple records
`
`may be retrieved from a relational. database).
`
`Referring to claim 9, Teorey teaches retrieving a second specific relation instance record
`
`defining relation of a second provided relation type between said provided entity and said desired
`
`entity from a second relation instance table corresponding to said second provided specific
`
`relation type (Figures 3 and 10, whereby stored information in table format relates two or more
`
`entities to each other, and Page 210 Section 3.1.3 whereby relationship relations are taught,
`
`whereby examiner notes multiple records may be retrieved from a relational database).
`
`Referring to claim 10, Teorey teaches a relational database processing system (Page 198
`
`column 1) comprising:
`
`i
`
`an entity definition table containing a first entity type record defining a first entity type
`
`(Page 204, Section 2.1);
`
`a first entity instance table associated with said first entity type (Figure 13 and Table 1,
`
`whereby entity instance tables are tables which contain entity data);
`
`a plurality of entity instance records stored in said first entity instance table (Page 208,
`
`Section 3.1.1, whereby entities are transformed into entity relations and Page 205, Step 1.2,
`
`whereby each entity relation contains a plurality of entity instance records);
`
`a relation definition table containing a first relation type record defining a provided
`
`relation type (Page 205, Section 2.1 Step 1.3, whereby relationships are defined and Page 217
`
`007
`
`007
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Step 3.2, whereby definitions of relation types transformed into relations are stored in a data
`
`dictionary);
`
`a first relation instance table associated with said provided relation type (Figure 10,
`
`whereby relationship relations are stored as tables;
`
`and a first relation instance record of said provided relation type, said first relation
`
`instance record relating a desired entity in one of said entity instance records to a provided entity
`
`(Page 203 Figure 4 and Page 208, Section 3.1.3, whereby relationship relations include a
`
`plurality of rows, each of which is a relation instance record, and whereby relation instance
`
`records relate an entity instance in one entity table to an entity instance in a second entity table).
`
`However, Teorey does not define the specifics of the use of a data dictionary for storing
`
`definitions of relation types.
`
`Kumpati teaches that definitions of relation types of entity sets are stored in a data
`
`dictionary (col. 5 lines 51-67 and col. 8 lines 35—59).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize the aspects of a data dictionary in the invention taught by Teorey above since
`
`data dictionaries are well known in the art and provide an outline of how a system is structured,
`
`which allows identification of relationships among entities and provides simple access to actual
`
`data (Kumpati, col. 5 lines 60-67).
`
`Referring to claim 11, Teorey teaches that each of said entity instance records is
`
`identified by a record identifier (Page 203, Figure 4, whereby each relation instance record
`
`contains a record identifier that corresponds to the desired entity instance record, and Page 204,
`
`008
`
`008
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`Step 1.1(5) whereby a record identifier can be a composite identifier composed of two or more
`
`attributes).
`
`Referring to claim 12,3Teorey teaches that said first relation instance record contains a
`
`desired record identifier and a desired entity type corresponding to a desired entity instance
`
`record containing said desired entity (Figures 4 and 13, whereby each relation instance record
`
`contains a record identifier that corresponds to a desired entity instance record, and Page 204,
`
`Step 1.1(5), whereby a record identifier can be composed of two or more attributes, including
`
`entity type and record identifier).
`
`5)
`
`Claims 4, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Teorey, further in view of Kumpati, further in view of Huber (US. Pat 4,918,593).
`
`3
`
`Referring to claim 4, Teorey teaches retrieving said specific relation instance record from
`
`said relation instance table based on said specific relation type record and said provided entity
`
`(Page 208, Section 3.1(3), whereby relationships are transformed into relationship relations and
`
`Figures 4 and 10, whereby relation instance records relate an entity instance in one entity table to
`
`an entity instance in a second entity table). In addition, Teorey teaches on Page 216, Table I, that
`
`each relationship relation includes the name of the relationship and on Page 217, Step 3.2, that a ,
`
`data dictionary is utilized. However, Teorey and Kumpati do not explicitly teach wherein said
`
`retrieving a specific relation instance record comprises retrieving a table identifier for said
`
`relation instance table from said specific relation type record.
`
`Huber teaches a relational database system whereby relationship relations are stored in a
`
`data dictionary as table definitions (column 7 lines 3-8), whereby table definitions include
`
`009
`
`009
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`.
`
`Page 8
`
`location information that permits the database to locate the file containing the corresponding
`
`table data (column 7 lines 3-8 and column 15 lines 17—45).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to retrieve a table identifier for said relation instance table from said specific relation
`
`type record in the invention taught above since this would help provide an improved relational
`
`data base system whereby a user may define a field in the rows of a base table whose value is
`
`dependent on a state of rows in another base table (Huber, col. 3 lines 60—66).
`
`Referring to claim 13, Teorey and Kumpati teach the above. In addition, Teorey teaches
`
`that relationship relations are stored in tables (Figure 4 and Figure 13). However, they do not
`
`explicitly teach that said first relation type record comprises a table identifier identifying said
`
`first relation instance table.
`
`Huber teaches storing table definitions in a data dictionary (col. 6 line 68 through col. 7
`
`line 8), whereby the table definitions store field definitions including location information in an
`
`actual database (col. 7 lines 3-8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made for a first relation type record to comprise a table identifier identifying said first
`
`relation instance table in the invention taught above since this would help provide an improved
`
`relational data base system whereby a user may define a field in the rows of a base table whose
`
`value is dependent on a state of rows in another base table (Huber, col. 3 lines 60-66).
`
`Referring to claim 15, Teorey and Kumpati teach the above. In addition, Teorey teaches
`
`-a second entity instance table associated with a second entity type (Page 216, Figure 13 and
`
`Table 1, whereby multiple entity instance tables are taught). However, they do not explicitly
`
`010
`
`010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`teach that said entity definition table contains a second entity type record containing said second
`
`entity type and associating said second entity instance table with said second entity type.
`
`Huber teaches storing table definitions in a data dictionary, whereby a set of table
`
`definitions can be contained, and examiner notes that a set contains two or more records (col. 6
`
`line 68 through col. 7 line 8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize the limitations above in the invention taught above since this would help
`
`provide an improved relational data base system whereby a user may define a field in the rows of
`
`a base table whose value is dependent on a state of rows in another base table (Huber, col. 3 lines
`
`60—66).
`
`Referring to claim 16, see rejection of claim 15 above, whereby examiner notes a
`
`plurality of entity instance tables and entity types can be utilized, extending to three or more.
`
`Referring to claim 17, Teorey and Kumpati teach the above. In addition, Teorey teaches
`
`a second relation instance table associated with a second relation type (Page 216, Figure 13 and
`Table I, whereby multiple relation instance tables are taught). However, they do not explicitly
`
`teach wherein said relation definition table contains a second relation type record containing said
`
`second relation type and associating said second relation instance table with said second relation
`
`type.
`
`Huber teaches storing table definitions in a data dictionary, whereby a set of table
`
`definitions can be contained, and examiner notes that a set contains two or more records (col. 6
`
`line 68 through col. 7 line 8).
`
`011
`
`011
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize the limitations above in the invention taught above since this would help
`
`provide an improved relational data base system whereby a user may define a field in the rows of
`
`a base table whose value is dependent on a state of rows in another base table (Huber, col. 3 lines
`
`60-66).
`
`Referring to claim 18, see rejection of claim 1.7 above, whereby examiner notes a
`
`plurality of relation instance tables and relation types can be utilized, extending to three or more.
`
`6)
`
`Claims 5-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Teorey, further in view of Kumpati, further in view of Zloof (Query-by-Example: a data base
`
`language).
`
`Referring to claims 5-6, Teorey and Kumpati teach the above. In addition, Teorey
`
`teaches that entities having relation types are transformed into relationship relations (Page 208,
`
`Section 3.1(3)). However, they do not explicitly teach retrieving data specifying said provided
`
`relation type or said provided entity from an inquiry table.
`
`Zloof teaches the use of Query-by-Example (QBE), whereby operations against the
`
`database are performed and inquiry tables are filled in that can be associated with actual database
`
`tables (Pages 325—326).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to retrieve data specifying said provided relation type or said provided entity from an
`
`inquiry table in the invention taught above since this allows a user to create and drop tables
`
`dynamically from a data base (Zloof, Page 324).
`
`012
`
`012
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992.
`
`Referring to claim 14, Teorey and Kumpati teach the above.
`
`In addition, Teorey teaches
`
`that entities have relation types that are transformed into relationship relations (Page 208, Sec
`
`3.1(3)). However, they do not explicitly teach an inquiry table containing an inquiry record,
`
`wherein said inquiry record specifies said provided relation type and said provided entity.
`
`Zloof teaches the use of Query-by-Example (QBE), whereby operations against the
`
`database are performed and inquiry tables are filled in that can be associated with actual database
`
`tables (Pages 325-326).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize an inquiry table containing an inquiry record, wherein said inquiry record
`
`specifies said provided relation type and said provided entity in the invention taught above since
`
`this allows a user to create and drop tables dynamically from a data base (Zloof, Page 324).
`
`Response to Patent Owner ’s Arguments
`
`7)
`In response to patent owner’s arguments filed 2/11/09, examiner has found them partially
`persuasive and has removed the previous rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) in
`
`view of Teorey, and under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of Teorey and Huber. However, as
`
`explained below, examiner is maintaining the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) in view of Teorey and Kumpati.
`
`In addition, further comments on all dependent claims
`
`can be found below. This action is made second non-final because the grounds of rejection for
`
`dependent claims 4-6 and 13—1 8 have changed in view of removing the 102(b) rejections of
`
`claims 1 and 10.
`
`013
`
`013
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Examiner will begin by responding to arguments presented on pages 18-23, regarding
`
`claim 1 in View of Teorey. Although the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as been removed,
`
`some of the arguments presented still apply to Teorey as used in the maintained rejection under
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`Patent owner argues with regard to claim 1 that Teorey is directed to "initial database
`
`design, not to the usage of the active or compiled database and processing of database retrieval
`
`queries". In response, examiner notes that although Teorey is primarily directed towards the
`
`creation of relational databases, it is well known that a database created by the methods of
`
`Teorey would have the programmed-functionality to be actually implemented in a physical
`
`database system. However, as will be discussed later, examiner points to the Kumpati reference
`
`for the teaching of an active database utilizing actual retrieval queries.
`
`Patent owner then repeats similar arguments relating to “design optimization” and
`
`“design phase” versus “noted relationships are to be saved in an active relational database
`
`table(s) from which they can be retrieved (or updated)). Examiner repeats the response above,
`
`namely that Teorey provides the functionality which would be used for an actual system.
`
`However, Kumpati is used to provide the teaching of an actual working relational database (see
`
`Fig. 1 and Abstract). Teorey teaches the provided relationships as well as the basics of
`
`organizing information to be retrieved by queries. Kumpati teaches a physical database system
`
`which manages query retrievals in an active relational database. Therefore, the combination of
`
`both references teaches the limitations of claim 1.
`
`With regard to claim 1, Patent Owner also argues that “there is simply no indication that
`
`the data dictionary noted in passing in Teorey is anything other than a static data
`
`014
`
`014
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`dictionary. . .Teorey fails to teach retrieving a desired entity type record containing the desired
`
`entity type from an active relational database entity definition table”.
`
`In response, examiner first
`
`notes that the “active" limitation described by patent owner is not specifically claimed. Whether
`
`the table was compiled previously or is capable of being continuously updated cannot be read
`
`into the currently claimed limitations. Patent owner focuses on “potential reprogramming and
`
`compilation” of tables versus “updating the tables using traditional queries”, however examiner
`
`again notes that this function is not specifically claimed. As current claimed, claim 1 could be
`
`accomplished utilizing pre-compiled or “static” tables.
`
`Next, examiner will discuss pages 26-27 of the response, relating to claim. 10 in view of
`
`Teore’y. Again, although the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as been removed, some of the
`
`arguments presented still apply to Teorey as used in the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a).
`
`Examiner first notes that claim 10 is a system claim comprising a plurality of records and
`
`tables. Unlike claim 1, claim 10 does not specify active queries.
`
`Patent owner argues with regard to claim 10 that Teorey does not teach “creating a table
`
`in the active relational database for storage and retrieval of entity type records defining entity
`
`types", and that Teorey does not teach "a relation definition table of a relational database in
`
`which relation type records are accessible, such as through retrieval queries”. In response,
`
`examiner notes that claim 10 claims a system comprising multiple records and tables. None of
`
`the records or tables are claimed to be actively accessed by query. However, assuming
`
`arguendo that these limitations are necessary, examiner notes that Kumpati does teach an active
`
`query processing system.
`
`015
`
`015
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Patent owner also argues that Teorey “provides neither an entity definition table, a
`
`relation definition, nor a relation instance table, because Teorey has no purpose for storing entity
`
`and relation type records as data in tables of the active relational database that can be retrieved”.
`
`In response, examiner again states that Teorey provides the necessary records and tables as
`
`shown in the maintained rejection above. The limitations of an active relational database and
`
`retrieving data in tables cannot be found in claim 10. However, assuming arguendo that they are
`
`, necessary, Kumpati teaches these aspects, and Teorey in combination with Kumpati still read on
`
`the claimed limitations.
`
`Next, examiner will discuss arguments presented on pages 35-3 8, regarding the
`
`combination of Teorey and Kumpati in view of both claims 1 and 10.
`
`Patent owner argues that Teorey “fails to teach relation and entity definition tables and
`
`relation instance tables, as discussed in section IV.B". In relation to this argument, examiner
`
`points to the response to arguments above, which deals with this section of arguments.
`
`Next, patent owner argues that “nowhere does Kumpati provide that any such entity-
`
`relationship or attribute type information is stored in a relational database that can be accessed
`
`(or updated) through processing of user queries. . .Kumpati teaches that any attribute type
`
`modification would require re-design and re-compilation”. In response, examiner notes that the
`
`claim limitations of claims 1 and 10 do not specifically require that the tables are to be pre-
`
`compiled, post-compiled, or dynamically updated. The claims merely rely on accessing the data
`
`in the tables. Teorey teaches establishing the required tables and records, and Kumpati teaches
`
`an active relational database which utilizes a data dictionary and physically implements many of
`
`016
`
`016
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`.
`
`-
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`i
`
`the claimed features. Therefore, the combination of Teorey and Kumpati still read upon claims 1
`
`and 10.
`
`Next, examiner will discuss arguments directed towards the dependent claims.
`
`Referring to claim 2, patent owner argues that “Teorey excludes the use of composite
`
`identifiers, and would therefOre eliminate entity types from relation instance records”.
`
`In
`
`response, examiner notes that although patent owner has cited one portion of Teorey on page
`
`204, section 1.1(5), the section was not fully cited. Teorey does suggest avoiding composite
`
`identifiers as one solution, however Teorey also says that they do not have to specifically be
`
`eliminated, but can be maintained if they are "reasonably natural" (Teorey, Pages 204-205,
`
`section 1.1(5)). Therefore, when considering claim 2, examiner maintains the rejection above in
`
`view of Teorey given the entirety of section 1.1(5).
`
`Referring to claims 3, 7-9 and 11-12, examiner notes that no specific arguments were
`
`presented, and therefore maintains the rejection above in View of Teorey.
`
`Referring to claim 4, patent owner argues the combination of Teorey with Huber. Patent
`
`owner argues that “there is no relation instance table that acts as an intermediary between the two
`
`base tables, and thus there are no relation instance records".
`
`In response, examiner notes that in
`
`the rejection of claim 4 above, Teorey is utilized to teach the relation instance records. Huber is
`
`used to teach that table identifiers were known in the context of tables and relational databases.
`
`Therefore, since Huber is used in the context of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), it is not
`
`required to possess all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 is maintained
`
`above.
`
`017
`
`017
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Referring to claims 13 and 15-18, examiner notes that no specific arguments were
`
`presented, and therefore maintains the rejection above in view of Teorey and Huber.
`
`With regard to claims 5-6 and 14, patent owner argues the combination of Teorey with
`
`Zloof. Patent owner argues that “Zloof does nothing to provide the deficiencies of Teorey,
`
`namely a failure to provide entity definition and relation definition tables or retrieval of entity
`
`and relation type records therefrom”. Patent owner also argues the use of hindsight in the
`
`combination of references. In response, examiner notes that Zloof is being relied upon to teach
`
`the use of inquiry tables. Zloof teaches query operations in a database which does use skeleton
`
`tables, but these tables can be associated with actual tables in the database and contain linking
`
`items. Therefore, linked retrievals can be considered inquiry records (see original third party
`
`Request, pages 25-27). Therefore, examiner notes that the skeletal tables can be considered real
`
`tables since they are associated with actual tables, and the claimed inquiry and record retrieval of
`
`claims 5-6 and 14 are therefore read upon by the combination of Teorey and Zloof.
`
`In response to patent owner’s argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is
`
`based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on
`
`obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so
`
`long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
`
`time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the
`
`disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170
`
`USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
`
`In summary, as disclosed in the original third party Request on pages 13-17 and 21-23,
`
`Teorey teaches the connection between entities and relations, wherein a relation defines the
`
`018
`
`018
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/008,648
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`relationship between two or more entities. Further, these entity and relation types may be
`
`defined within and accessed in a relational database through a data dictionary, which contains
`
`both entity and relation definitions. Records of these entity and relation types may be stored in
`
`instance tables, wherein each table may contain a plurality of entity records or a plurality of
`
`relation records. Kumpati teaches the detai