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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 03 April 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicants may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
Applicant argues:
The specification at paragraph 44 confirms that "the table size decision function 204 can return the exact size of the outer table used in the query" in the embodiment discussed. This is a separate, preliminary query execution, not part of the original query, and not a heuristic estimate.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
The independent claims do not recite limitation(s) that require “return the exact size of the outer table used in the query”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
Second, the claims now recite "in response to determining that the actual result set size exceeds the threshold and that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated, rewriting ... the inner query conditions." This element ties the rewriting step directly to the threshold determination and the correlation determination, making explicit that the optimization is performed because of and conditioned upon the results of the COUNT-based threshold check. This is supported by the embodiment discussed in the specification at least at paragraphs 45-51, which
describe the optimizer 202 performing the dynamic filtering optimization "only ... if both results are true or positive" (specification at ¶49). i.e. when the table size decision function 204 confirms the threshold is exceeded and the correlated condition decision function 206 confirms the conditions are correlated.
The combination of Ahmed and Pasupuleti fails to teach or suggest the claims for at least the following reasons.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Ahmed does teach the limitations of in response to determining that the actual result set size exceeds the threshold (Ahmed: at least ¶0094; “determined whether grouping provides a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of rows produced (e.g., 1000x reduction) and a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of aggregation functions (e.g., 2x reduction)”; ¶0100 further discloses “grouping and pre-computation are performed only if the conditions described above are satisfied. This heuristic ensures that the grouping provides a 1000x reduction in the number of rows produced by the group-by view and at least 2x reduction in its aggregation functions”; ¶0124 further discloses “it is determined whether grouping passes a grouping and pre-computation heuristic check”) and that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated, rewriting, by the query engine, the inner query conditions to include at least one of the outer query conditions (Ahmed: at least ¶0072; “three inline views, V1, V2, and V3, in the outer query block (e.g., FROM clause) of query Q1A are subsumed by the subsuming view SV” and “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, “the filter predicate F.c=5, which are common to all three subsumed views, V1, V2, and V3, is factored out and is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, and “three filter predicates F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2, are unified as F.g IN (69, 40, 2) and placed in the subsuming view SV”; ¶0024 discloses subsumption conditions comprise “if it is determined, at step 104, that all inline views or subqueries have identical tables and have identical join conditions”; note: ¶0013 of Applicant’s disclosure teaches that “determining that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated includes identifying a joining condition in the inner query”) to generate an optimized query (Ahmed: at least ¶0086; “rewritten queries Q1B and Q2B, thus, improve query performance over the original queries by reducing table accesses and joins”; note: subsumed view as inner query block) by adding the at least one outer query condition to the inner query and propagating filter predicates from the outer query into the inner query based on the relationship (Ahmed: at least ¶0072; “three filter predicates F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2, are unified as F.g IN (69, 40, 2); ¶0005 explains “rewriting queries that have multiple inline views or subqueries accessing the same tables and using the same join conditions”; note: filter predicates such as F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2 are propagated to inner query; conditions such as join conditions are added to inner query).
Applicant further argues:
Pasupuleti does not cure Ahmed's deficiency. The Examiner relies on Pasupuleti paragraph 114 for the proposition that executing the outer query with a COUNT expression determines an actual result set size. However, Pasupuleti paragraph 114 states: "the COUNT expression in the view counts all qualified rows in each group, and the expression in the outer query counts all qualified rows from all of the groups in the view." This passage describes COUNT expressions that are part of an already-rewritten query structure, not a separate, preliminary COUNT execution performed to decide whether to rewrite. Pasupuleti paragraph 114 appears in a section titled "Rules for Transformation of Count Aggregate" (beginning at paragraph 110), which discusses how COUNT aggregate functions are handled during query transformation (i.e., how to correctly transform queries containing COUNT aggregates). This is fundamentally different from separately executing the outer query with a COUNT operation before any transformation has occurred, to decide whether transformation should occur.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Pasupuleti does teach executing, by the query engine and separately from the database query as received, the outer query with a COUNT operation to determine an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query (Pasupuleti: at least ¶0114; “the COUNT expression in the view counts all qualified rows in each group, and the expression in the outer query counts all qualified rows from all of the groups in the view”).
In addition, the instant claims do not recite limitation(s) that require “separately executing the outer query with a COUNT operation before any transformation has occurred”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “[0058] in step 304, the method can include executing an outer query” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “receiving, by a query engine, a database query, the database query including an inner query having inner query conditions and an outer query having outer query conditions” and “… executing, by the query engine and separately from the database query as received, the outer query with a COUNT operation to determine an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query”.
Applicant’s original specification does not appear to disclose the feature of executing an outer query separately from a database query that includes the outer query as the database query is being received.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8 and 15, and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “receiving, by a query engine, a database query, the database query including an inner query having inner query conditions and an outer query having outer query conditions” and “… executing, by the query engine and separately from the database query as received, the outer query with a COUNT operation to determine an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query”.
It is not clear how the recited “outer query” that is included in the database query can be executed separately from the database query as the database query is being received. The outer query is a part of the database query and should only execute after the database query is received. Paragraph 0058 of Applicant’s original specification teaches “in step 304, the method can include executing an outer query” and paragraph 0053 teaches that step 304 follows step 302 that includes receiving a query (see also Fig. 3).
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8 and 15, and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2023/0024553 by Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”) in view of US PGPUB 2022/0164353 by Pasupuleti.
As to Claim 1, Ahmed teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a query engine, a database query, the database query including an inner query having inner query conditions and an outer query having outer query conditions (Ahmed: at least ¶0018; “query may include an outer query block and zero or more inner query blocks in the body of the outer query block” and “an inner query block that appears in a FROM clause of a query is referred herein as an inline view”; ¶0072 further discloses “three inline views, V1, V2, and V3, in the outer query block”);
determining, by the query engine, that an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query exceeds a threshold (Ahmed: at least ¶0016; “factored out filter predicates and unified predicates make joins and aggregations more efficient in the subsuming view as they reduce the number of rows produced before joins and aggregations are performed”; ¶0094 also discloses “determined whether grouping provides a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of rows produced (e.g., 1000x reduction) and a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of aggregation functions (e.g., 2x reduction)”; ¶0100 further discloses “grouping and pre-computation are performed only if the conditions described above are satisfied. This heuristic ensures that the grouping provides a 1000x reduction in the number of rows produced by the group-by view and at least 2x reduction in its aggregation functions”; note: SUM, AVG are examples of aggregate functions; an actual reduced result set size) before executing a join condition between the inner query and the outer query (Ahmed: at least ¶¶0090-0091; “… evaluating heuristics prior to grouping” and “flowchart 200 for a DBMS to assess whether grouping and pre-computation may be performed”; note: Ahmed’s determining of number of rows does not require execution of the database query and is prior to query execution; the execution of join operations in Q1B and Q2B would take place during the execution of the Q1B and Q2B after all optimization/rewriting operations are done);
identifying a relationship between at least one condition in the outer query and a joining condition in the inner query, wherein the relationship indicates that the at least one condition in the outer query can filter results of the inner query (Ahmed: at least ¶0014; “in subsumption, a single query block replaces multiple inline views with a single inline view query block”; ¶0016 further discloses “factored out filter predicates and unified predicates make joins and aggregations more efficient in the subsuming view as they reduce the number of rows produced before joins and aggregations are performed”; ¶0072; “three inline views, V1, V2, and V3, in the outer query block (e.g., FROM clause) of query Q1A are subsumed by the subsuming view SV” and “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, and “the filter predicate F.c=5, which are common to all three subsumed views, V1, V2, and V3, is factored out and is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”; ¶0005 also introduces “rewriting queries that have multiple inline views or subqueries accessing the same tables and using the same join conditions”; note: content of inline views including conditions correlate to conditions in subsumed view because after query rewrite, content of inline views become part of the subsumed view; subsumed view are determined to be the block where correlated conditions are moved into; join conditions and filter predicates such as F.a=D1.a, F.c=5, F.g=40 can filter results);
determining, by the query engine, that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated based on the relationship (Ahmed: at least ¶0014; “in subsumption, a single query block replaces multiple inline views with a single inline view query block”; ¶0016 further discloses “factored out filter predicates and unified predicates make joins and aggregations more efficient in the subsuming view as they reduce the number of rows produced before joins and aggregations are performed”; ¶0072; “three inline views, V1, V2, and V3, in the outer query block (e.g., FROM clause) of query Q1A are subsumed by the subsuming view SV” and “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, and “the filter predicate F.c=5, which are common to all three subsumed views, V1, V2, and V3, is factored out and is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”; ¶0005 also introduces “rewriting queries that have multiple inline views or subqueries accessing the same tables and using the same join conditions”; note: content of inline views including conditions correlate to conditions in subsumed view because after query rewrite, content of inline views become part of the subsumed view; subsumed view are determined to be the block where correlated conditions are moved into; join conditions and filter predicates such as F.a=D1.a, F.c=5, F.g=40 can filter results);
in response to determining that the actual result set size exceeds the threshold (Ahmed: at least ¶0094; “determined whether grouping provides a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of rows produced (e.g., 1000x reduction) and a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of aggregation functions (e.g., 2x reduction)”; ¶0100 further discloses “grouping and pre-computation are performed only if the conditions described above are satisfied. This heuristic ensures that the grouping provides a 1000x reduction in the number of rows produced by the group-by view and at least 2x reduction in its aggregation functions”; ¶0124 further discloses “it is determined whether grouping passes a grouping and pre-computation heuristic check”) and that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated, rewriting, by the query engine, the inner query conditions to include at least one of the outer query conditions (Ahmed: at least ¶0072; “three inline views, V1, V2, and V3, in the outer query block (e.g., FROM clause) of query Q1A are subsumed by the subsuming view SV” and “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, “the filter predicate F.c=5, which are common to all three subsumed views, V1, V2, and V3, is factored out and is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, and “three filter predicates F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2, are unified as F.g IN (69, 40, 2) and placed in the subsuming view SV”; ¶0024 discloses subsumption conditions comprise “if it is determined, at step 104, that all inline views or subqueries have identical tables and have identical join conditions”; note: ¶0013 of Applicant’s disclosure teaches that “determining that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated includes identifying a joining condition in the inner query”) to generate an optimized query (Ahmed: at least ¶0086; “rewritten queries Q1B and Q2B, thus, improve query performance over the original queries by reducing table accesses and joins”; note: subsumed view as inner query block) by adding the at least one outer query condition to the inner query and propagating filter predicates from the outer query into the inner query based on the relationship (Ahmed: at least ¶0072; “three filter predicates F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2, are unified as F.g IN (69, 40, 2); ¶0005 explains “rewriting queries that have multiple inline views or subqueries accessing the same tables and using the same join conditions”; note: filter predicates such as F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2 are propagated to inner query; conditions such as join conditions are added to inner query); and
executing, by the query engine, the optimized query on a database (Ahmed: at least ¶0127; “… the resulting query is executed”).
Ahmed does not explicitly disclose, but Pasupuleti discloses executing, by the query engine and separately from the database query as received, the outer query with a COUNT operation to determine an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query (Pasupuleti: at least ¶0114; “the COUNT expression in the view counts all qualified rows in each group, and the expression in the outer query counts all qualified rows from all of the groups in the view”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pasupuleti’s feature of executing, by the query engine and separately from the database query as received, the outer query with a COUNT operation to determine an actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query (Pasupuleti: at least ¶0114) with the actual result size in Ahmed’s method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for “early group-by evaluation” that “may result in a significant reduction of the number of rows on which one or more group-by operators apply, as well as a reduction in the number of rows later used in the join” that may improve overall performance of the query significantly (Pasupuleti: at least ¶0003).
Claim 8 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 2, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 1, wherein receiving a database query comprises receiving a structured query language (SQL) statement (Ahmed: at least ¶0133; “one non-limiting example of a database language that is supported by many database servers is SQL, including proprietary forms of SQL supported by such database servers as Oracle, (e.g., Oracle Database 11g). SQL data definition language (“DDL”) instructions are issued to a database server to create or configure database objects, such as tables, views, or complex types. Data manipulation language (“DML”) instructions are issued to a DBMS to manage data stored within a database structure. For instance, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE are common examples of DML instructions found in some SQL implementations”).
Claim 9 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 3, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 1, wherein executing the outer query with a COUNT operation comprises replacing a select list of the outer query with a COUNT function to generate a second query and executing the second query on the database (Ahmed: at least ¶0094; “determined whether grouping provides a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of rows produced (e.g., 1000x reduction) and a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of aggregation functions (e.g., 2x reduction)”; ¶0097 further discloses “if the unified filter predicate for a column is an IN-list predicate, then the expression for the column on the left hand side of the inequality may be replaced with the count of items in the IN-list for that column”).
Claim 10 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 4, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 3, wherein replacing the select list comprises replacing the inner query of the database query with a COUNT operation (Ahmed: at least ¶0097; “IN-list predicate” and “then the expression for the column on the left hand side of the inequality may be replaced with the count of items in the IN-list for that column”).
Claim 11 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 6, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the inner query conditions and the outer query conditions are correlated comprises identifying a joining condition in the inner query (Ahmed: at least ¶0014; “in subsumption, a single query block replaces multiple inline views with a single inline view query block”; ¶0016 further discloses “factored out filter predicates and unified predicates make joins and aggregations more efficient in the subsuming view as they reduce the number of rows produced before joins and aggregations are performed”; ¶0072 further discloses “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”).
Claim 13 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 7, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 1, wherein rewriting the inner query conditions to include at least one of
the outer query conditions to generate an optimized query comprises executing the outer query, modifying the inner query conditions to generate a new inner query, executing the new inner query (Ahmed: at least ¶0072; “ “the same join condition F.a=D1.a is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, “the filter predicate F.c=5, which are common to all three subsumed views, V1, V2, and V3, is factored out and is placed in the WHERE clause of the subsuming view SV”, and “three filter predicates F.g=69, F.g=40, and F.g=2, are unified as F.g IN (69, 40, 2) and placed in the subsuming view SV”; ¶0127 further discloses “… the resulting query is executed”; note: resulting query would include new inner query), and joining results of the new inner query with results of the outer query.
Claim 14 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2023/0024553 by Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”) in view of US PGPUB 2022/0164353 by Pasupuleti as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2022/0414099 by Dutt et al. (“Dutt”).
As to Claim 5, Ahmed and Pasupuleti teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query exceeds a threshold (Ahmed: at least ¶0016; “factored out filter predicates and unified predicates make joins and aggregations more efficient in the subsuming view as they reduce the number of rows produced before joins and aggregations are performed”; ¶0094 also discloses “determined whether grouping provides a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of rows produced (e.g., 1000x reduction) and a predetermined amount of reduction in the number of aggregation functions (e.g., 2x reduction)”; ¶0100 further discloses “grouping and pre-computation are performed only if the conditions described above are satisfied. This heuristic ensures that the grouping provides a 1000x reduction in the number of rows produced by the group-by view and at least 2x reduction in its aggregation functions”; note: SUM, AVG are examples of aggregate functions).
Ahmed and Pasupuleti do not explicitly disclose, but Dutt discloses computing a ratio of the actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query to a total size of an outer table queried by the outer query (Dutt: at least ¶0064; “… where the first selectivity is below another threshold value and where the second selectivity is above the first threshold value, a first execution plan (P1) will be selected”; ¶0021 explains that “selectivity refers to a ratio, fraction, or percentage (e.g., a number between 0 and 1) of rows within a table or other dataset that satisfies an associated predicate”; note: rows that satisfy are rows that are responsive; ratio, fraction or percentage of rows that satisfy as ratio of number of rows responsive to total size of queried table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dutt’s feature of computing a ratio of the actual result set size of rows responsive to the outer query to a total size of an outer table queried by the outer query (Dutt: at least ¶¶0021, 0064) with the method disclosed by Ahmed and Pasupuleti.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to determine execution plan for query optimization that “would result in the lowest execution cost” (Dutt: at least ¶0050).
Claim 12 (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 (a device claim) corresponds in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
20 June 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights