DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 27, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16-18 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.
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 1-7, 9-14 and 16-18 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.
Claims 1 and 11 state “checking required resources for executing said query, said query being a real-time, currently running query.”
However, a previous limitation states that there are a plurality of query requests (i.e. multiple queries). Because there seems to be a number of queries it is not clear which said query is being executed.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-14 and 16-18 do not remedy the above issue.
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 1-7, 9-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0327242) in view of Panuganty et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0401593) and further in view of Rath et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0081409).
Claims 1 and 11: Brown discloses a method and a system for dynamically allocating computing resources in real time, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving plurality of dynamic, real-time access or query SQL requests or DDL, DML activity from an entity to be executed in real time in a shared and central or distributed database [0056]. [See at least submitting and evaluating a SQL request.]
checking required resources for executing said query [0067]. [See at least identifying system resources.]
checking resources availability, constraints [0067]. [See at least identifying system resources.]
Brown alone does not explicitly disclose said query being a real-time, currently running query.
However, Rath [0024, 0051] discloses monitoring resources of a currently executed query.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown with Rath. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that a query is executed using available resources.
Brown alone also does not explicitly disclose checking user profile and query context; and wherein the context that is related to the query includes a combination of at least two of the following: type of action, user role, client location/IP, entity location, or time of day.
However, Panuganty [0487] identifying query context based on a user profile; Panuganty [0177] further discloses using at least a user role and a location for query context.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown with Panuganty. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to interpret the query based on a user’s behavior (see Panuganty [0487] and other provided context.
Brown as modified further discloses:
applying dynamically in real time, predefined business rules for dynamically at a same time optimizing allocation of discrete/granular resources for plurality of currently access/SQL requests for predefined time period, for currently running queries, said business rules define granular resources allocation based on query context, entity profile, time schedule and required resources for the query [0079, 0116, 0240]. [See at least identifying time periods when to run a query, that also allocates resources to optimize the query.]
wherein the business rules are defined in term of: computer resources minimum/maximum/rate of change [0105], allocation rules for resolving conflict between different interpretation of business needs [0177-0178], checking options of enlarging or reducing allocation resources to each entity based on business context [0115]. [Also, Rath [0024, 0051] discloses monitoring resources of a currently executed query. Thus, rejection of the instant limitation is based on at least Brown in view of Rath for the same reasons as above.]
Claims 2 and 12: Brown as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Panuganty, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the context that is related to the query further comprises at least one of: type of DB entities it engages with, hints within the query [0438].
Claims 3 and 13: Brown as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Brown, further discloses managing pending requests, currently not allocated, wherein the resource allocation can be done periodically or triggered when resource availability changes and managing currently running requests, wherein the resource allocation is changed periodically or triggered when resource availability changes or in case of bottleneck [0071, 0079].
Claims 4 and 14: Brown as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Brown, further discloses periodically managing the size of the resource pool or dynamically adjusting the pool size in response to changes in resource availability [0099, 0156]. [“Reserving a special set of reserve pools for single and few-AMP queries may be beneficial…”]
Claim 5: Brown as modified discloses the method of Claim 1 above, and Brown, further discloses identifying required resources for planning a physical tree execution of the request based on determined logical tree and Boolean algebra [0147, 0250].
Claim 6: Brown as modified discloses the method of Claim 1 above, and Brown, further discloses for planning physical tree execution of the request and applying cost usage optimization [0240, 0243, 0250].
Claims 7 and 18: Brown as modified discloses the method of Claim 1 above, and Brown, further discloses optimizing resources allocation by applying business rules to a given workload at each time period of queries processing based on conflicting business needs of the different entities which initiate the queries [0071, 0079].
Claims 9 and 16: Brown as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Brown and Panuganty, further discloses wherein the business rules take into account the entity identity type [Brown: 0079], entity location [Panuganty: 0120], functionality of the request [Brown: 0115], timing and priority restrictions of each entity [Brown: 0058].
Claims 10 and 17: Brown as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Brown, further discloses wherein the allocation rules are defined in relative or absolute terms, allocation in numbers or relative allocation or by economic resources evaluation [0079, 0116, 0240].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163