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 pending in this Office Correspondence.
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, 9 – 11, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim 11 recites a “method for receiving a first query plan. . ..; executing the first query plan . . . receiving, during execution of a first portion of the first query plan, a set of rowsets, . . .; determining a set of metrics. . . ; determining, using a heuristic, a second predicate order . . . ; and processing, during execution of the first portion of the first query plan using the second predicate order, a second set of rowsets. . .” the claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A Prong One:
"executing the first query plan" as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0103 - 0104], where one can mentally evaluate to perform executing the first query plan.
“determining a set of metrics” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraph [0103 - 0104], where one can mentally evaluate to perform determining a set of metrics.
“determining, using a heuristic, a second predicate order” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0103 - 0104]], where one can mentally evaluate to determining a second predicate order.
These imitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “executing” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, “executing the first query plan; determining a set of metrics; and determining, using a heuristic, a second predicate order” to provide enormous sums of information in an organized manner, so that the information can be accessed, managed and updated in an efficient manner. The compute service manager is coupled to the execution platform, which provides multiple computing resources that execute various data storage and data retrieval tasks.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "receiving a first query plan", receiving, during execution of a first portion of the first query plan, a set of rowsets“ and "processing, during execution of the first portion of the first query plan using the second predicate order, a second set of rowsets.” These limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The limitations "receiving” and “processing” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 are rejected for the same rational under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 9, 10 and 19, respectively, merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 19 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the set of metrics comprises an estimated selectivity metric for each predicate and a time cost per row for each predicate”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 9, since it/they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the heuristic comprises a first technique and a second technique, the first technique utilized for a conjunctive query statement, and the second technique utilized for a disjunctive query statement”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 9 – 11, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9 – 11, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2024/0134858 issued to Sarah Kate Schieferstein et al. (“Schieferstein”) and in view of USPGPUB 2024/0111745 issued to Richard Wendel, III et al. (“Wendel”).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 20, Schieferstein recites a system, method and program product, comprising:
receiving a first query plan corresponding to a query, the first query plan comprising a set of predicates (Para [0138]: the parallelized query and response sub-system receives queries regarding tables (e.g., data sets) and processes the queries prior to sending them to the parallelized data store, retrieve, and/or process sub-system for execution. For example, the parallelized query and response sub-system generates an initial query plan based on a data processing request (e.g., a query) regarding a data set (e.g., the tables));
executing the first query plan, the executing comprising: receiving, during execution of a first portion of the first query plan, a set of rowsets, the set of rowsets comprising a plurality of rows (Para [0138]: the parallelized query and response sub-system receives queries regarding tables (e.g., data sets) and processes the queries prior to sending them to the parallelized data store, retrieve, and/or process sub-system for execution. For example, the parallelized query and response sub-system generates an initial query plan based on a data processing request (e.g., a query) regarding a data set (e.g., the tables). Sub-system optimizes the initial query plan based on one or more of the storage instructions, the engaged resources, and optimization functions to produce an optimized query plan; and Para [0246]: the input data blocks can indicate a plurality of rows, and the operation can be a SELECT operator indicating a simple predicate. The output data blocks can include only proper subset of the plurality of rows that meet the condition specified by the simple predicate);
determining a set of metrics for a first number of rows from the plurality of rows, the first number of rows corresponding to a first predicate order (Para [0246]: the input data blocks can indicate a plurality of rows, and the operation can be a SELECT operator indicating a simple predicate. The output data blocks can include only proper subset of the plurality of rows that meet the condition specified by the simple predicate. Para [0426]: the index efficiency metrics generator module can perform one or more queries, such as a set of test queries. upon the dataset and/or upon individual ones of the set of segments to generate the secondary indexing efficiency metrics);
determining, using a heuristic, a second predicate order based at least in part on the set of metrics (Para 0367]: the one or more heuristic functions and/or optimizations can generate the secondary indexing scheme selection data as functions of: the segment row data for the given segment: local distribution data determined for the segment row data for the given segment: user-generated secondary indexing hint data, system-generated secondary indexing hint data, and/or other information. Para [0540]: first one of the plurality of IO operators generates its output in accordance with a first predicate of the set of predicates corresponding to the first column by utilizing the first set of indexes, and a second one of the plurality of IO operators generates its output in accordance with a second predicate of the set of predicates corresponding to the second column by utilizing the second set of indexes); and
processing, during execution of the first portion of the first query plan using the second predicate order, a second set of rowsets, the second set of rowsets comprising a second plurality of rows that correspond to the first portion of the first query plan that has been executed based on the second predicate order (Para [0540]: first one of the plurality of IO operators generates its output in accordance with a first predicate of the set of predicates corresponding to the first column by utilizing the first set of indexes, and a second one of the plurality of IO operators generates its output in accordance with a second predicate of the set of predicates corresponding to the second column by utilizing the second set of indexes; and Para [0548]: when executed by a processing module that includes a processor and a memory, causes the processing module to: determine an IO pipeline that includes a serialized ordering of a plurality of IO operators for execution upon a segment in accordance with a set of query predicates, maintain an IO request priority queue ordered by row number for a plurality of row-based IO for performance by the plurality of IO operators).
Schieferstein does not explicitly teach set of rowset as claimed.
However, Wendel discloses set of rowset (Para 0513]: identification of a set of row identifier sets via each probabilistic index element. As each operand can be treated as a given predicate, each row identifier set can be guaranteed to include the true predicate-satisfying row set satisfying the corresponding operand as discussed previously . . . ).
Both of Schieferstein and Wendel are same field of endeavor and they are both in the data processing art and therefore, they are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Schieferstein's executing query processing in a database system with the teachings of Wendel’s performing query execution by a processor of a database system, in order to
enable reducing Input output (IO) cost for variable length data through storage of index comparable to indexes of fixed-length columns to efficiently utilize memory resources to index variable length data to improve efficiency of reading variable length data.
As to claims 9 and 19, the set of metrics comprises an estimated selectivity metric for each predicate and a time cost per row for each predicate (Schieferstein, Para [1127]: where the rewrite via using compressed values is foregone in some cases when the number of expansions and/or expected execution time and/or other metric resulting from expansion of the expression into CNF due to the conjunction with the predicate testing for inequality with the non-mall value (or other expansion required for other conversions for other expressions) compares unfavorably to a corresponding inefficiency threshold (e.g. exceeds a threshold max #conversions. threshold max estimated execution time, threshold max #parallelized tracks, etc.).
As to claim 10, the heuristic comprises a first technique and a second technique, the first technique utilized for a conjunctive query statement, and the second technique utilized for a disjunctive query statement (Schieferstein, Para [0873 - 0874]: a database system that filters via a disjunction of conjunctive normal Form (CNF) predicates during pre-data materialization (e.g. at an IO level and/or via an IO pipeline) to generate a filtered row set to which additional filtering and/or processing in conjunction with query execution can be applied. The query execution can require that filters be in conjunctive normal form (CNF), where filters are optionally exclusively handed in CNF).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record does not teach or fairly suggest, “receiving a particular query plan, the particular query plan comprising a particular set of predicates; executing the particular query plan, the executing comprising: receiving, during execution of an initial portion of the particular query plan, an initial set of rowsets, the initial set of rowsets comprising a first particular plurality of rows; determining a first set of metrics for a first particular number of rows from the first particular plurality of rows, the first particular number of rows corresponding to a default predicate order; determining whether an improvement threshold has been met based at least in part on the first set of metrics; in response to determining that the improvement threshold has been met, determining, using the heuristic, a new predicate order based at least in part on the first set of metrics; and processing, during execution of the initial portion of the particular query plan using the new predicate order, a subsequent set of rowsets, the subsequent set of rowsets comprising a different plurality of rows that correspond to the initial portion of the particular query plan that has been executed based on the new predicate order” as recited in claims 2 and 12.
The dependent claims 3 – 8 and 13 – 18 that are dependent on dependent claims 2 and 12, respectively, being definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification could also be allowable.
Examiner Notes
The examiner has considered the applicant's claims in light of the disclosure. However, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,577(Fed. Cir. 2002)); “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” SRIInt’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc). Written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
Note that “limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims, and … interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” Intervet Am., v. Kee-Vet Labs., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474 1476 (fed. Cir. 1989).
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp,. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (fed. Cir. 2005).
“One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.’… For example, an inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer is he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention’ with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Such a definition may appear in the written description, … or in the prosecution history, …” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is also cited and Applicants are reminded that they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed prior art could be used as an obviousness type Office correspondence.
Willems (USP 12,061,603): involves generating a query plan including join operators respectively in pipelines, where generation of the query plan include definition of an operator usage state and operator pruning condition. A portion of the query plan including the first pipeline and the first join operator is executed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
February 7, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161