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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, after “queries” (second instance, line 4) should replace “are” with – is --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: one or more modules (claim 2).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 and 16 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 4 and 16, “identify the difference between the first and second performance as a point of failure” is indefinite because a difference is not a point. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – identify the difference between the first and second performance as a [[point of]] failure --.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea of “generating at random … a plurality of queries structured in accordance with the query grammar” (mental process), “generating … performance data at least partially characterizing the execution of the plurality of queries” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Receiving data steps are directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Executing the plurality of queries on the database with the one or more database features enabled during execution of at least one query of the plurality of queries is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 10, 14, and 17 are directed conventional elements.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claim 7-10, 12, and 19 are conventional extra-solution activities.
Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 20 and their respective dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10. 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ender et al. (US 2023/0103856).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Ender et al. discloses a method and system (Fig. 3) for testing features of a database management system (Abstract, lines 1-3), comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (301), a query grammar (selecting template query, paragraph 0109, line 3);
receiving, by the one or more processors (301), control data indicating one or more database features (paragraph 0109, lines 3-6) to enable while executing queries on a database (paragraph 0109, lines 11-13);
generating at random, by the one or more processors (301), a plurality of queries structured in accordance with the query grammar (Abstract, lines 3-6; query features are in accordance with the query temple, paragraph 0109, lines 3-6);
executing, by the one or more processors (301), the plurality of queries on the database with the one or more database features enabled during execution of at least one query of the plurality of queries (the ranked random test queries are then executed in order of rank, Abstract, lines 11-12;); and
generating, by the one or more processors (301), performance data at least partially characterizing the execution of the plurality of queries (executed random test queries which resulted in an error (e.g., system failure) are added to a log, which is used to identify those queries to perform a stress test against the big data management system, Abstract, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 13, Ender et al. further discloses a system (Fig. 3) comprising one or more memory devices (305, 306) storing a database (Fig. 3); and one or more processors (301).
Regarding claim 20, Ender et al. further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (305) encoded with instructions executed by one or more processors (301).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ender et al. discloses:
identifying, by the one or more processors (301) and based on the performance data, one or more points of failure indicated in the performance data (executed random test queries which resulted in an error (e.g., system failure) are added to a log, which is used to identify those queries to perform a stress test against the big data management system, Abstract, lines 12-16), and
identifying, by the one or more processors (301) and based on the one or more points of failure, at least one module of one or more modules executing the one or more database features as a source of failure (executed random test queries which resulted in an error (e.g., system failure) are added to a log, which is used to identify those queries to perform a stress test against the big data management system, Abstract, lines 12-16; identify software failures … identify failing SQL statements due to a code defect in a particular feature of the database system, paragraph 0016, lines 3-8).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Ender et al. discloses:
generating, by the one or more processors (301), a snapshot of the database after identifying the one or more points of failure (identify software failures … identify failing SQL statements due to a code defect in a particular feature of the database
system, paragraph 0016, lines 3-8) imply identifying a code defect in a particular feature of the database system).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Ender et al. discloses executing, by the one or more processors (301), queries with the one or more database features enabled (the ranked random test queries are then executed in order of rank, Abstract, lines 11-12).
It is noted that queries the one or more database features disabled at random is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ender et al. discloses:
receiving, by the one or more processors (301), a test driver (303 runs on 301, paragraph 0056, lines 1-5) configured to generate output in accordance with a format in accordance with the performance data (result of stress testing of data management systems from stress testing data, Abstract. lines 2-3);
generating, by the one or more processors, query outputs (Abstract, lines 3-4); and
generating, by the one or more processors, the performance data (stress test data, Abstract, line 2) at least partially based on the query outputs (test queries, Abstract, line 6), and in accordance with the test driver (testing system 101 performs the stress test, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ender et al. discloses the test driver (101) is configured to perform one or more of receiving the query grammar (selecting template query, paragraph 0109, line 3).
It is noted that the test driver (101) is configured to perform one or more of:
receiving the control data,
generating the plurality of queries, or
executing the plurality of queries, and
identifying, by the one or more processors, based on the performance data,
one or more points of failure of the one or more database features are alternative limitations since they are recited in the alternative form.
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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ender et al. in view of Qin et al. (US 2023/0409570).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ender et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except
identifying, by the one or more processors, a difference between:
first performance data at least partially characterizing execution of one or more of the plurality of queries with a first database feature of the one or more database features enabled, and
second performance data at least partially characterizing execution of one
or more of the plurality of queries with the first database feature disabled;
determining, by the one or more processors, that the difference between
the first and the second performance data meets or exceeds a predetermined difference threshold; and
in response to the determining, identifying, by the one or more processors,
the difference between the first and the second performance data as a point of failure for the first database feature.
Qin et al. discloses
identifying, by the one or more processors, a difference (difference between predicted execution time of database queries, paragraph 0045, lines 8-12) between:
first performance data at least partially characterizing execution of one or
more of the plurality of queries with a first database feature of the one or more database features enabled (predicted execution time of database queries, paragraph 0045, lines 9-10), and
second performance data at least partially characterizing execution of one
or more of the plurality of queries with the first database feature disabled (actual execution time of database queries, paragraph 0045, lines 11-12);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the difference between
the first and the second performance data meets or exceeds a predetermined difference threshold (difference between predicted execution time of database queries, paragraph 0045, lines 8-12); and
in response to the determining, identifying, by the one or more processors,
the difference between the first and the second performance data as a point of failure for the first database feature (paragraph 0045, lines 12-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ender et al. with identifying, by the one or more processors, the difference between the first and the second performance data as disclosed by Qin al. for the purpose of predicting poor query performance.
Claims 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ender et al. in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0392066).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ender et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the performance data comprises one or more of:
correctness data at least partially characterizing the correctness of output from
execution of queries with the one or more database features enabled or disabled, relative to corresponding ground-truth outputs, or
performance data at least partially characterizing differences in computational
resource cost or usage between executions of queries with the one or more database features enabled and executions of queries with the one or more database features disabled.
Kim et al. disclose performance data comprises one or more of:
correctness data at least partially characterizing the correctness of output from
execution of queries with the one or more database features enabled, relative to corresponding ground-truth outputs (ground-truth query results return correct query results, paragraph 0104, lines 4-6, where database is accessible/enabled to query).
It is noted that correctness data at least partially characterizing the correctness of output from execution of queries with the one or more database features disabled, or
performance data at least partially characterizing differences in computational resource cost or usage between executions of queries with the one or more database features enabled and executions of queries with the one or more database features disabled alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ender et al. with ground-truth outputs as disclosed by Qin al. for the purpose of returning correct query results.
Claim 7 is an alternative limitation because claim 7 is dependent on an alternative limitation, i.e., correctness data at least partially characterizing the correctness of output from execution of queries with the one or more database features disabled (see claim 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ender et al. in view of Pang (US 2023/0289330).
Regarding claim 8, Ender et al. does not disclose
receiving, by the one or more processors, a database schema, the database being structured in accordance with the database schema; and
when generating the plurality of queries, the plurality of queries are generated with target data selected in accordance with the database schema.
Pang discloses:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a database schema, the database being structured in accordance with the database schema (operating time series database schemas, Abstract, lines 1-3); and
when generating the plurality of queries, the plurality of queries are generated with target data selected in accordance with the database schema (a query plan is generated according to the database schema, Abstract, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ender et al. with a database schema as disclosed by Qin al. for the purpose of generating a plurality of queries.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ender et al. in view of Rodriguez et al. (US 20210357409).
Regarding claim 11, Ender et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the query grammar is a context-free grammar.
Rodriguez et al. discloses a context-free grammar for producing grammar queries (paragraph 0072, lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ender et al. with a context-free grammar as disclosed by Rodriguez et al. for the purpose of producing grammar queries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ender et al. in view of Dong et al. (US 2022/0156237).
Regarding claim 12, Ender et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except outputting, by the one or more processors, the performance data to a display of a computing device.
Dong et al. discloses outputting, by the one or more processors (116), the performance data to a display of a computing device (114, Fig. 1) as a result of running test queries (Abstract, lines 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ender et al. with display as disclosed by Dong et al. for the purpose of displaying performance data as a result of running test queries.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights