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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 6 – 9, 15 – 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 5, 10 – 14, 19 - 20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 10 – 14, 19 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundra et al (U.S. 11,327,795 B1) in view of Saadat-Panah et al (U.S. 2017/0039239 A1) and Atmakur et al (U.S. 2022/0308919 A1) further in view of Tsujino et al (U.S. 2007/0118838 A1), [hereafter Mundra, Saadat-Panah, Atmakur and Tsujino, respectively].
♦As per claims 1, 10, 19,
Mundra discloses a method, system (processor and memory: See Fig. 9 of Mundra) comprising:
- “executing, by a database execution engine (Fig. 9, Processing unit 904), a query execution plan for a database query” See col. 2 lines 36 – 40, col. 14 lines 7 – 13, 45 - 46 of Mundra wherein a set of workflow tasks (execution plan) are executed by a client device with corresponding databases; the results are returned to the server and transmitted to a user/device that defined the workflow, [“Client devices may request a workflow task or a set of workflow tasks from a server for execution by the client device or by downstream devices (e.g., other client devices controlled by the client device)”, “At block 420, the client device executes the set of workflow tasks using the set of worker threads”; And in col. 11 lines 47 – 64), “Execution environment 104 transmits the results of each workflow task to server 208 along with the token… The workflow result is available to be transmitted to the device or user that defined the workflow for inspection at a later time”].
Mundra does not clearly teach “the query execution plan comprising a directed acyclic graph that indicates links between executable operators configured to execute tasks using a plurality of worker threads”.
However, Saadat-Panah discloses a method, system for task scheduling including the teaching of:
* a system and the processes implemented thereby support the execution of DAGs (directed acyclic graphs) of jobs. For any computation (e.g., a sequence of jobs to execute a query) that is translatable to a DAG, it is possible that the DAG be executed using the system(s) disclosed herein: See Para. 0034 of Saadat-Panah.
* each query execution plan can be represented as a DAG of jobs, where the edges between the jobs in the DAG shows the dependency of the jobs and DAGs can capture two types of dependencies, time and resource dependencies: See Para. 0055 of Saadat-Panah.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Saadat-Panah into the invention of Mundra, since both inventions were available, and the combination would increase speed and stability of the system.
- “setting, by a database execution engine, a first flag to indicate to a plurality of worker threads to stop executing tasks in a first queue of a memory stack” See col. 3 lines 52 – 67, col. 8 lines 43 – 60, col. 14 lines 46 - 60 of Mundra wherein the client device stop executing the workflow task when receiving an indicator (first flag) of delay from “the local execution environment of the client device (e.g., such as processor interrupt), from server host 128, user input, from other devices, and/or the like”, [“At block 424, an indication of a processing delay is received. The indication may be, for example, a notification, a software or processor interrupt, a communication from a remote device, or the like. For example, the processing delay may be triggered when the client device must execute another process such as a higher priority process, a process that requires the resources allocated to the execution of the set of workflow tasks, status check (e.g., to a downstream or upstream device), or the like. The processing delay may prevent the execution of the set of workflow tasks from completing…in response to receiving the indication of the processing delay, suspends execution of the set of workflow tasks by the set of worker threads”].
- “pushing, by a database execution engine, into the memory stack, a second queue containing the one or more exclusive tasks associated with the operator” See col. 14 lines 58 – 66, col. 15 lines 28 - 45 of Mundra wherein other tasks or higher priority process transferred to the client device for executing, [“the client device executes a set of different tasks using the set of worker threads. … To avoid system idle time in which the client device, the client device may execute other tasks while waiting for the processing delay to terminate. The client device may include a task queue that includes processes that may be waiting for execution. In some instances, the tasks in the task queue may be low priority tasks (e.g., tasks that may not be scheduled to execute unless the client device is idle) such as diagnostic processes (e.g., processing diagnostics, network diagnostics, etc.), or the like. In other instances, the task queue may be filled with tasks associated with other non-workflow related applications, tasks associated with other workflows, tasks assigned from another device (e.g., such as server, other client devices, or the like)”].
Mundra/ Saadat-Panah does not clearly teach “wherein the pushing inserts the one or more exclusive tasks into the memory stack”.
However, Atmakur discloses this teaching when provides a method for executing build jobs more efficiently. In particular, Atmakur teaches:
* one or more build jobs to be executed: corresponding to one or more tasks to be executed (Para. 0022 of Atmakur).
* The mathematical model then assigns a priority to these build jobs based on the classifications: See Para. 0022 of Atmakur.
* The build jobs are then inserted at particular positions in a build queue based on the assigned priority in a manner that causes the higher priority build jobs to be executed by the build tool prior to the lower priority build jobs: See Fig. 4, Para. 0022, 0101 - 0103 of Atmakur.
* resumes execution of the previously executed build job, such as upon completion of the execution of the recently inserted build job assigned the highest priority: See Para. 0104 of Atmakur.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Atmakur (about insert high priority task/job into current queue) into the invention of Mundra/ Saadat-Panah, since both inventions were available, and the combination would increase speed and stability of the system.
Mundra teaches that the current/low priority tasks are suspended and store in a temporary queue (such as first queue), and the high priority tasks are executed by the same worker thread (abstract, col. 13 lines 4 – 20, col. 14 lines 50 – 66, col. 15 lines 28 - 45 of Mundra). Therefore, the worker thread in this case is inhibit to access the temporary queue during the suspended period.
Mundra/ Saadat-Panah/Atmakur does not clearly teach “determining, by the database execution engine, that an operator of the executable operators is associated with one or more exclusive tasks among the tasks requiring exclusive use of memory resources of the database execution engine”.
However, Tsujino, in the same filed of endeavor, discloses a method, system for managing a plurality of task groups, each composed of a plurality of tasks, including the teaching of:
* A plurality of tasks with corresponding priority: See Para. 0002, 0059 of Tsujino wherein “when executing a plurality of tasks… selects and executes the plurality of tasks in the decreasing order of priorities”.
*A priority control unit can set a task to PAUSE, STOP, RESTART accordingly to its priority (set a flag): See Para. 0021, 0084 of Tsujino.
* an exclusive task: See Para. 0008 of Tsujino wherein “An Exclusive process is a special process performed by a task”.
* exclusive tasks require exclusive use of memory resources of the database execution engine: See Para. 0008, 0065 - 0066 of Tsujino wherein “when starting an exclusive process, which requires exclusive use of a shared resource, the task requests the OS to prohibit access to the shared resource by any other task”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Tsujino (about execute an exclusive task that requires exclusive use of a memory resource) into the invention of Mundra/ Saadat-Panah/Atmakur, since both inventions were available, and the combination would increase speed and stability of the system (Para. 0025 of Tsujino).
- “setting, by a database execution engine, a second flag to indicate to the plurality of worker threads to resume working” See col. 14 lines 58 – 66, col. 15 lines 28 - 45 of Mundra wherein client device starts executing other tasks, [“the client device executes a set of different tasks using the set of worker threads. … To avoid system idle time in which the client device, the client device may execute other tasks while waiting for the processing delay to terminate. The client device may include a task queue that includes processes that may be waiting for execution. In some instances, the tasks in the task queue may be low priority tasks (e.g., tasks that may not be scheduled to execute unless the client device is idle) such as diagnostic processes (e.g., processing diagnostics, network diagnostics, etc.), or the like. In other instances, the task queue may be filled with tasks associated with other non-workflow related applications, tasks associated with other workflows, tasks assigned from another device (e.g., such as server, other client devices, or the like)”].
- “in response to the second queue being empty of the one or more exclusive tasks, setting, by a database execution engine, a third flag to indicate to the plurality of worker threads to stop executing tasks in the second queue, popping the second queue from the memory stack, the popping removing the second queue from the memory stack and enabling access to tasks in the first queue, and setting a fourth flag to indicate to the plurality of worker threads to resume working on the tasks in the first queue” See col. 4 lines 24 – 28, col. 15 lines 46 – col. 16 lines 7 of Mundra wherein the client device may receive an indication (third flag) that the process delay has terminated, (therefore, removed from the client device and the client device resource is available to process other task), and the client device resumes execution of the set of workflow tasks stored in the temporary workflow task queue, [“When the high priority operation terminates, the client device redistributes the workflow tasks in the temporary worker queue back to the worker threads to resume execution of the workflow… such that workflow tasks can be resumed at the point in which execution was paused to prevent loss of processing”].
Mundra discloses an “indication” or “marks” that corresponds to a “flag” that able to let the device performs corresponding actions (such as stop or resume execution). Further Mundra teaches: “The server then marks the workflow tasks as being capable of being resumed by the client device” (See col. 4 lines 5 – 8, Mundra). The indication may be, for example, a notification, a software or processor interrupt, a communication from a remote device, or the like (col. 3 lines 52 – 67, col. 8 lines 43 – 60, col. 14 lines 46 - 60 of Mundra). As discussed above, upon receive the indication or marks, the client device can either pause the processing, start the new workflow tasks, and upon determine the termination notice, resumes the old workflow tasks. Therefore, Mundra does disclose plurality of “flag” as in the invention.
♦As per claims 2, 11, 20,
- “receiving, at the database execution engine, the query from a client device” See abstract, Fig. 1, col. 6 lines 8 – 10, 24 - 26 of Mundra wherein the server receives the request from the client device, [“The request with the poll token is received by workflow lease distribution unit 136”].
♦As per claims 3, 12,
- “wherein during execution of the query execution plan, a task scheduler comprised in the database execution engine receives a request for exclusive scheduling of the one or more exclusive tasks” See col. 3, lines 52 – 60, col. 5 lines 66 – col. 6 lines 6 of Mundra (high priority operation).
♦As per claims 4, 13,
- “wherein the request causes the setting of the first flag to indicate to the plurality of worker threads to stop executing tasks in the first queue of the memory stack” See col. 5 lines 66 – col. 6 lines 6, col. 12 lines 16 - 22 of Mundra wherein “This process may continue for as long as the client device is configured to execute workflow tasks or until a high priority event is detected (e.g., a processing tasks that is higher priority than the workflow tasks). For example, if the client device has a high priority tasks scheduled for execution, the poller may be interrupted until the client device is ready to resume execution of workflow tasks”, and “When a local process, high priority process (e.g., higher priority than a priority assigned to the executing workflow), or delay occurs, the execution environment may temporarily suspend execution of the workflow. The execution environment may suspend execution of the workflow and divert processing resources allocated to the execution environment to the local or high priority process”.
♦As per claims 5, 14,
- “wherein the first flag causes the plurality of worker threads to sleep, such that execution of the tasks in the first queue stops” See col. 13 lines 4 – 14, col. 15 lines 28 - 35 of Mundra wherein “Since the workflow tasks are suspended, the worker threads assigned to execute the workflow tasks may remain idle”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 5, 10 – 14, 19 - 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Atmakur et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571- 272- 4024. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights