DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having Application No. 18/469,690 has a total of 21 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (US 2021/0117172 A1).
For claim 1, Nair et al. teaches:
A system, comprising: a data source [sources of data, 0038: Nair]; a data service tool [service provider tool, 0032: Nair]; a result storage [storage for performance tracker, 0061-0062: Nair]; and a performance optimizer coupled to the data source, the data service tool, and the result storage [performance optimizer associated to system, 0021: Nair], including: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor [processor, storage and memory with performance optimizer, 0024: Nair], cause the performance optimizer to: determine a new type of data job to be executed based on a job execution parameter [execution based on parameters, 0036-0037: Nair], perform a first execution of the new type of data job, such that data operations are performed at the data service tool, and collect first performance results [performance tracker with performance optimizer with application customizer that that rolls out and deploys from tool to user, 0031 and 0032: Nair], perform a second execution of the new type of data job, such that data operations are pushed down and performed at the data source, and collect second performance results [performance tracker with performance optimizer with application customizer that does data function on the platform, 0031 and 0034: Nair], compare the first and second performance results [choose between alternatives after performance optimizing, 0020-0021: Nair], and update the result storage with an indication of whether subsequent executions of the new type of data job will perform data operations at the data service tool or at the data source [performance tracker data used for feature optimization, 0046: Nair].
For claim 2, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data source is associated with at least one of: (i) a database, and (ii) a database-based application [database based application, 0087: Nair].
For claim 3, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data service tool is associated with a special table object that contains data from several different database tables [special user data from various tables, 0037: Nair].
For claim 4, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data operations are associated with at least one of: (i) a sort, (ii) a search, (iii) a replace, (iv) an arithmetic operation, and (v) a data join [data retrieval and transformation, 0056: Nair].
For claim 5, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first and second performance results are associated with at least one of: (i) an execution time, (ii) Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) usage, (iii) memory utilization, and (iv) an Input Output (“IO”) parameter [runtime processing part of performance testing, 0043: Nair].
For claim 6, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the indication stored in the result storage comprises a pushdown flag [performance indicator determined and stored based on performance optimizer results, 0057-0058: Nair].
For claim 7, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the result storage is accessed prior to execution of a subsequent data job and the data operations are performed in accordance with the appropriate pushdown flag [operations performed based on performance optimizer indicator, 0057-0058: Nair].
For claim 8, Nair et al. teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the appropriate pushdown flag is based at least in part on: (i) the type of data job, (ii) a particular data source, (iii) a particular data service tool, and (iv) a type of information being accessed [access information, content type and other measurable data used as indicators, 0057-0059: Nair].
Claim 9 is a method of the system taught by claim 1. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 10 is a method of the system taught by claim 2. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 11 is a method of the system taught by claim 3. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 is a method of the system taught by claim 4. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 13 is a method of the system taught by claim 5. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is a method of the system taught by claim 6. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is a method of the system taught by claim 7. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 16 is a method of the system taught by claim 8. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 8 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 is a medium of the system taught by claim 1. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 is a medium of the system taught by claim 2. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 19 is a medium of the system taught by claim 3. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 20 is a medium of the system taught by claim 4. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 21 is a medium of the system taught by claim 5. Nair et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJITH M JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1763. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: Flexible Hours.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AJITH JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
3/21/2026
Prosecution Insights