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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 and 04/18/2024 (with the exception of NPL Document No. 2) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 04/18/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL document No. 2 is illegible, and as such, a clearer copy needs to be submitted for consideration. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein (NPL document No. 2) has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants as independent claims 1, 11 and 21 of the instant invention are broader claims than independent claims 1, 11 and 21 of Patent No. 11,921,716 as shown in the comparison table below. Additionally, the instant invention recites first and second times series data and Patent No. 11,921,716 discloses first and second tables which are obvious variants of each other as shown below.
Instant Application Claims
Patent No. 11,921,716 Claims
Claim 1. A method comprising:
generating, by at least one hardware processor, a query plan of a query, the query including a JOIN operation between first time series data and second time series data;
modifying at least one node in the query plan corresponding to the JOIN operation to generate a modified query plan, the modifying based on replacing the at least one node with a new node including a UNION operation, the UNION operation based on the first time series data and the second time series data; and
scheduling execution of the query based on the modified query plan.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the JOIN operation is an AS OF JOIN operation, and the method further comprising: applying the UNION operation on at least a first portion of column data in the first time series data and the second time series data, the at least a first portion of column data being associated with at least one data type that is common between the first time series data and the second time series data.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
parsing, by at least one hardware processor, a query to determine a plurality of data processing operations associated with the query, the plurality of data processing operations comprising an AS OF JOIN operation between first time series data in a first table and second time series data in a second table;
generating a query plan of the query, the query plan including a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of data processing operations, and at least one node of the plurality of nodes corresponding to the AS OF JOIN operation;
modifying the at least one node corresponding to the AS OF JOIN operation to generate a modified query plan of the query, the modifying based on applying a UNION operation on at least a first portion of column data in the first table and the second table to obtain a combined table; and
scheduling execution of the query by at least one of a plurality of computing nodes based on the modified query plan.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least a first portion of column data is associated with at least one data type that is common between the first table and the second table.
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: applying null padding to at least a second portion of column data in the first time series data and the second time series data.
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: applying null padding to at least a second portion of column data in the first table and the second table, the at least a second portion comprising data originating from one of the first table or the second table.
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: adding a first new column to a combined table with the first time series data and the second time series data to generate a modified combined table, the first new column including indicator data to indicate whether a corresponding row of the modified combined table includes data originating from the first time series data or the second time series data.
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: adding a first new column to the combined table to generate a modified combined table, the first new column including indicator data to indicate whether a corresponding row of the modified combined table includes data originating from the first table or the second table.
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: applying a partitioning operation to the modified combined table using a partition key, the partition key based on a data type that is common between the first time series data and the second time series data.
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: applying a partitioning operation to the modified combined table using a partition key, the partition key based on a data type that is common between the first table and the second table.
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: adding at least a second new column to the sorted table to generate a modified sorted table, the at least a second new column comprising the at least a second portion of column data in the first time series data, and the second time series data without the null padding.
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: adding at least a second new column to the sorted table to generate a modified sorted table, the at least a second new column comprising the at least a second portion of column data in the first table, and the second table without the null padding.
Claim 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: applying a filtering operation and a project operation to the modified sorted table to generate a result table of the JOIN operation, the filtering operation based on the indicator data.
Claim 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: applying a filtering operation and a project operation to the modified sorted table to generate a result table of the AS OF JOIN operation, the filtering operation based on the indicator data.
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: scheduling execution of the UNION operation on a first computing node of a plurality of computing nodes of a database system; and scheduling execution of one or more remaining operations of the modified query plan on at least a second computing node of the plurality of computing nodes.
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: scheduling execution of the UNION operation on a first computing node of the plurality of computing nodes; and scheduling execution of one or more remaining operations of the modified query plan on at least a second computing node of the plurality of computing nodes.
Claims 11-20 (correspond to claims 1-10)
Claims 11-20
Claims 21-30 (correspond to claims 1-10)
Claims 21-30
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 3, 13 and 23 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.
Claims 3, 13 and 23 recite the limitation "the at least a first portion of column data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as the first recitation of at least a first portion of column data is in claims 2, 12 and 22 not claims 1, 11 and 21 from which claims 3, 13 and 23 depend. Additionally, claims 4-9, 14-19 and 24-30 are also rejected for their dependency on claims 3, 13 and 23, respectively.
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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to signals per se. Claim 21 (and 22-30) is directed to a computer-storage medium comprising instructions. As described by the applicant’s specification, paragraph [00155] discloses “The terms "machine-storage media," "computer- storage media," and "device-storage media" specifically exclude carrier waves, modulated data signals, and other such media, at least some of which are covered under the term "signal medium" discussed below;” and paragraphs [00157]-[00158] disclose “The terms "transmission medium" and "signal medium" mean the same thing and may be used interchangeably in this disclosure. The terms "transmission medium" and "signal medium" shall be taken to include any intangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying the instructions 2916 for execution by the machine…Hence, the terms "transmission medium" and "signal medium" shall be taken to include any form of a modulated data signal, carrier wave, and so forth. Applicant disavows signals for computer-storage media in [00155], but then states that any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions is a signal medium. The claims disclose a computer-storage medium comprising instructions which would then be akin to a medium capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions such as a signal medium. Therefore, the applicant’s specification fails to expressly and unambiguously limit the medium to solely non-transitory forms such that the claimed computer-storage medium encompasses transitory forms and is ineligible. As such, claims 21-30 fail to clearly and definitely recite a medium that is non-transitory.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 13, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0374140; hereinafter Adams) in view of Adya et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0226203; hereinafter Adya).
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a method comprising:
generating, by at least one hardware processor, a query plan of a query, the query including a JOIN operation between first time series data and second time series data ([0033], [0038], [0049], [0064]-[0067] generates a query execution plan based on a query; the query execution plan having one or more joins inserted; timestamped/time-series data are joined using interval joins);
modifying at least one node in the query plan corresponding to the JOIN operation to generate a modified query plan, the UNION operation based on the first time series data and the second time series data ([0033], [0038], [0042], [0045], [003], [0064]-[0067] the query execution plan is modified based on the interval; a UNION operator can be utilized in the modified plan), but fails to disclose the modifying based on replacing the at least one node with a new node including a UNION operation.
Adams also fails to disclose scheduling execution of the query based on the modified query plan.
However, Adya discloses the modifying based on replacing the at least one node with a new node including a UNION operation ([0215], [0276] optimizing the query by rewriting it and replacing one or more outer joins by one or more unions in the partitions); and scheduling execution of the query based on the modified query plan ([0117], [0131] the query is broken down and distributed into a query pipeline (e.g., such as scheduling to be executed) to the data stores for execution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Adams and Adya before him/her, to modify the teachings of Adams with the teachings of Adya. The motivation for doing so would combine the query modification of Adams with the query rewriting of Adya to provide a rewritten query execution plan that is likely to result in efficient execution plans thereby avoiding unnecessary joining of data that is known to be disjoint and minimize the size of intermediate query results as disclosed by Adya [0276].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Adams and Adya discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least a first portion of column data comprises first timestamp data associated with the first time series data and second timestamp data associated with the second time series data, and wherein the modifying further comprises: applying the UNION operation on the first timestamp data and the second timestamp data (Adams: [0032], [0033], [0038], [0045], [0049], [0064]-[0067] UNION applied to the columns of the interval join timestamped/series data).
Claims 11, 13, 21 and 23 contain corresponding limitations as claims 1 and 3 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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 DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166