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 .
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, 3-10, and 13-18 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 claim 1 contains the limitations:
“generating a query execution plan for an analytical query, wherein the query execution plan comprises a plurality of tasks;
modifying the query execution plan based on the generated query execution plan, wherein the modified query execution plan is generated to collect data transfer measurements for each of the tasks, wherein the data transfer measurements are collected during the execution of the modified query execution plan” clause.
The “modifying” step is unclear because it refers to both “the query execution plan” and “the generated query execution plan” as if they are two different elements. However, the context of the claim appears to indicate that these two elements are the same element, notably “a query execution plan” from the previous limitation. When subsequently referring to a claim element, the claims should use consistent terminology, such as either “the query execution plan” or “the generated query execution plan,” but not both.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “causing a given data center of the geographically distributed data centers to execute at least one of the plurality of tasks.”
“A plurality of tasks” is introduced as part of the “query execution plan” in the initial “generating a query execution plan for an analytical query, wherein the query execution plan comprises a plurality of tasks” step.
However, the claim language added in the 11/3/2025 amendment introduces the “modified query execution plan,” which comprises “collect[ing] data transfer measurements for each of the tasks, wherein the data transfer measurements are collected during the execution of the modified query execution plan.”
Thus, “tasks” appear to be part of both the query execution plan and the modified query execution plan.
It is unclear whether the “given data center” is executing tasks of the original “query execution plan” before modification or tasks of the modified “query execution plan.”
Claim 16 contains the following limitation:
“modifying, a query execution plan based on a generated query execution plan, wherein the modified query execution plan is generated to collect data transfer measurements for each of the tasks, wherein the data transfer measurements are collected during the execution of the modified query execution plan;”
It is noted that the element “the tasks” has not been introduced to the claims.
Independent claim 16 recited “wherein generating the query execution plan for the analytical query that minimizes the bandwidth costs by jointly optimizing the query execution plan, plication strategies for the data partitions and task scheduling for the query execution plan.”
It is unclear from the specification what a “plication strategy” is.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadjieleftheriou et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0164430) in view of Kornacker et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0280032), in view of Chandramouli et al. (US 2012/0166417), and further in view of Kadambi et al. (“Where in the World is my Data?”).
As to claim 19, Hadjieleftheriou teaches computing system, comprising:
at least one processor (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraph [0013]); and
computer-readable storage comprising components, the components being executable by the at least one processor (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraph [0013]), the components comprising:
a query control component configured to receive an analytical query to be executed over distributed data in a plurality of data centers (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037]. As noted in paragraph [0036], a query may be received. The system of Hadjieleftheriou analyzes the query and the distribution of data in the plurality of data centers, as shown in paragraph [0037]);
…
a measurement component configured to generate a modified query execution … for the analytical query based on the query execution … , the query execution … being modified to collect data transfer measurements for each of the tasks during execution of the modified query execution plan (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037]. A set of instructions to query a database is received and modified to access the relevant data, including remote data. See Kornacker, cited below, below for teaching a query execution plan);
the query control component further configured to control the data centers to execute the tasks of the modified query execution … and transfer intermediate query results between the data centers wherein the data transfer measurements are collected during execution of the modified query execution … (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037] and [0072]. Hadjieleftheriou states that collection of bandwidth data may occur “at query time” as a part of the querying process); and
the measurement component further configured to acquire the data transfer measurements for each of the tasks during the execution of the modified query execution .... (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037]. In paragraph [0030], Hadjieleftheriou shows to consider bandwidth when storing the data. Bandwidth is a data transfer measurement. As noted in paragraph [0072], this may occur “at query time.”),
wherein a query planner component configured to generate an updated query execution … based on the modified query execution .. .for the analytical query (see paragraph [0072]. A query plan may be updated based on conditions in terms of bandwidth or other computing costs)
…
updating the given data center of the geographically distributed data centers based on interactions with a set of users (see paragraph [0073]. Data structures may be deleted or removed from a data center based on interactions with the data structures as a result of queries. It is noted that a data management application and query tools are provided to submit queries, paragraph [0021]. Users may interface with these applications, see Figure 5 and paragraph [0092]). Thus data centers may be updated in view of queries, or interactions, submitted by users).
Hadjieleftheriou does not explicitly teach:
a query planner component configured to generate a query execution plan for the analytical query, the query execution plan comprising tasks;
a query planner component configured to generate an updated query execution plan based on the modified query execution plan for the analytical query and
a workload optimization component configured that minimizes the bandwidth costs by jointly optimizing the query execution plan, the replication strategies for the data partitions and task scheduling for the query execution plan,
wherein the analytical query is a recurrent analytical query that is used to parse and partition a plurality of queries to create distributed query execution plans; and
Kornacker teaches a query planner component configured to generate a query execution plan for the analytical query, the query execution plan comprising tasks (see Kornacker paragraph [0038]. Kornacker shows that a query execution plan may be generated for executing a query across a distributed database);
…
a workload optimization component configured [for] jointly optimizing the query execution plan, the replication strategies for the data partitions and task scheduling for the query execution plan (see Kornacker paragraphs [0038] and [0044]. Kornacker considers how to optimize a query in light of the distributed nature of the database replicas. It is noted that scheduler entities are accessed as a part of this decision),
wherein the analytical query … is used to parse and partition a plurality of queries to create distributed query execution plans (see paragraphs [0038] and [0044]. The query is distributed to multiple nodes); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Hadjieleftheriou by the teachings of Kornacker because both references are directed towards executing queries on distributed notes. Creating a query execution plan, as in Kornacker, will ensure that the remote and distributed queries of Hadjieleftheriou are handled efficiently.
Chandramouli et al. teaches:
a query planner component configured to generate an updated query execution plan based on the modified query execution plan for the analytical query (see Chandramouli paragraphs [0037]-[0038]. An older query plan may be updated based on current statistics. This is updating a query execution plan. As noted in paragraph [0038], this process may be repeated for the lifetime of a query. This indicates that a previously modified query plan may be updated);
wherein the analytical query is a recurrent analytical query (see paragraph Chandramouli [0038]. The query may be a continuous, or repeating, query).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Hadjieleftheriou by the teachings of Chandramouli because both references are directed towards managing queries. Chandramouli provides the benefit of ensuring analyzing current system statistics during execution of a query to modify a query plan. This will increase query optimization in Hadjieleftheriou, improving query execution efficiency.
Kadambi teaches:
wherein a query planner component configured to generate the query execution plan for the analytical query and a workload optimization component configured that minimizes the bandwidth costs by jointly optimizing the query execution plan, the replication strategies for the data partitions … for the query execution plan (see Kadambi Section 3.1 and 3.2 see Section 3.2. Kadambi discusses a desire to "minimize the sum of replication bandwidth and forwarding bandwidth." Forwarding bandwidth is related to executing read requests (query plan tasks) and replication bandwidth is related to replication strategies. The last paragraph of section 3.2 discusses choosing a "replication strategy to minimize the sum of replication bandwidth and forwarding bandwidth for a given work-load." Thus, a replication strategy is chosen and a workload (query plan) is generated based on a sum, or combination, of replication bandwidth and forwarding bandwidth (bandwidth costs for replication and query execution). It is noted that Kornacker paragraph [0044] takes into account scheduling of tasks when distributing tasks across a network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Hadjieleftheriou by the teachings of Kadambi because both references are directed towards managing replication and queries in distributed databases. Kadambi provides the benefit of ensuring that workloads, or queries, are performed efficiently in view of replication strategies. This will ensure that queries executed in Hadjieleftheriou are performed as efficiently as possible when considering the properties of a distributed system.
As to claim 20, Hadjieleftheriou as modified teaches computing system of claim 19, the components further comprising a workload optimization component configured to determine replication strategies for the distributed data and schedule the tasks of the analytical query to the data centers based on the data transfer measurements for each of the tasks (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037]. Kornacker paragraph [0038] shows scheduling tasks of the query plan).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant included no specific arguments regarding claim 19.
Applicant argues that both Kornacker and Kadambi fail to teach “modifying the query execution plan based on the generated query execution plan, wherein the modified query execution plan is generated to collect data transfer measurements for each of the tasks.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Hadjieleftheriou is relied upon to teach the idea of modifying a set of instructions to access data (see Hadjieleftheriou paragraphs [0029], [0036]-[0037]. A set of instructions to query a database is received and modified to access the relevant data, including remote data. See Kornacker, cited below, below for teaching a query execution plan). Kornacker is relied upon to explicitly show creating a “query execution plan.”
Applicant argues that neither Hadjieleftheriou, Kornacker, nor Kadambi teaches “scheduling of query execution or the distribution of the workload.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Kornacker does teach “scheduling of query execution or the distribution of the workload” at paragraphs [0038] and [0044] for the reasons provided in the rejection above.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152