DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication filed 26 August 2026 responsive to the 03 June 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
With the communication, claims 1, 6, 9, 14 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to the § 112(d) rejections that the language of claims 11 and 12 further limits claim 9 because, according to Applicant, it further limits the “initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously” and “second mode” of that claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, as pointed out in the Office action, the “initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously” referred to in claim 11 is only performed contingent upon “the highest value being less than or equal to the first threshold” in claim 9. Similarly, the being “in the second mode” referred to claim 12 is contingent upon “the highest value being between the first threshold and the second threshold” in claim 9.
Since the initiating compiling and indicating a second mode are contingent limitations, they are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II). Since all elements of claims 11 and 12 only further describe those contingent limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation they are not required by the claims either.
Applicant argues with respect to the § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 17 that Neumann does not teach that the first and second threshold are set based on benchmark data associated with a workload. Applicant reasons that the thresholds of Neumann are “predefined” and set based on test data retrieved from one or more test databases as opposed to what is claimed. (Remarks, p. 9 last par. – p. 11 par. 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Neumann’s thresholds are benchmarks because they are standards against which the estimated number of rows is compared. (See Neumann, par. Par. [0008]). The data retrieved by the queries is thus benchmark data because it is used to determine the thresholds. And the test queries are a workload because they are executed to retrieve data. (See Neumann, par. [0004]).
Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 and 17 are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 11, the language of this claim further describes the “compiling of the source code asynchronously” of claim 9, which is a non-limiting contingent limitation of that claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II). Since the language only further describes non-limiting claim language, it does not further the limit the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 12, the language of this claim further describes the “second mode” of claim 9, which is a non-limiting contingent limitation of that claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II). Since the language only further describes non-limiting claim language, it does not further the limit the claim upon which it depends.
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, 8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (US 2021/0334298) (art of record – hereinafter Neumann) in view of Bossman et al. (US 2009/0049012) (art of record – hereinafter Bossman), Wang (US 2022/0019586) (art of record – hereinafter Wang) and Westrelin et al. (US 2016/0062878) (art of record – hereinafter Westrelin).
As to claim 1, Neumann discloses a system, (e.g., Neumann, Fig. 2 and associated text) comprising:
at least one processor; (e.g., Neumann, Fig. 2 and associated text, par. [0029]) and
at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, result in operations (e.g., Neumann, Fig. 2 and associated text, par. [0029]) comprising:
setting a first threshold by selecting a value of a first cardinality flag; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0080]: in some implementations, the interpretation criterion [flag] is satisfied when the estimated number of rows [cardinality] that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is less than or equal to threshold 502 [the value of that threshold being preset])
setting a second threshold by selecting a value of a second cardinality flag, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0080]: the compilation criterion [flag] is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed is greater than the first threshold 502 but less than a second threshold 504 [the value of that threshold being preset]) wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are set based on benchmark data associated with a workload; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0058]: one or more test queries [a workload] are issued to retrieve data from the database 122 for determining the plurality of predefined thresholds [which are benchmarks])
selecting, based on the value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query, one of at least three processing modes for processing the query, wherein the at least three processing modes comprises: a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode; (Neumann, Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: The first execution option specifies direct interpretation (510) when the estimated execution time is less than or equal to a first execution time threshold 502 [first mode]. The second execution option specifies compilation (520) with no or little code optimization when the estimated execution time is greater than the first execution time threshold 502 and less than a second execution time threshold 504 [second mode]. The third execution option specifies compilation with a certain level of code optimization (530) when the estimated execution time is greater than or equal to the second execution time threshold 504 [third mode]; par. [0080]: in some implementations, the interpretation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is less than or equal to a first threshold 502. The compilation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is greater than the first threshold 502 but less than a second threshold 504. The optimized compilation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is greater than the second threshold 504)
based on the value being less than or equal to the first threshold, indicating the first mode, commencing processing of the query by interpreting source code and initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously; (e.g., Neumann, Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: two or more thresholds are used to select the query execution plan from among the query execution options. The first execution option specifies interpretation when the estimated execution time is less than or equal to a first execution time thresholds 502; par. [0083]: some implementations use hybrid approach to selection of the query execution option. For example, when the interpretation is satisfied [the highest value being less than or equal to the first threshold, ass above], some implementations immediately start using the bytecode interpreter, but also initiate compilation in the background [asynchronously, because it is happening at the same time as using the interpreter])
based on the value being between the first threshold and the second threshold, indicating the second mode, commencing processing of the query; (e.g., Neumann, Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: the second execution option specifies compilation with no or little optimization when the estimated execution time is greater than the first execution time threshold 502 and less than a second execution time threshold 504) and
based on the value being greater than or equal to the second threshold, indicating the third mode, commencing processing of the query by compiling the source code and avoiding use of an interpreter (e.g., Neumann, at Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: the third execution option specifies compilation of the intermediate representation when the estimated execution time is greater than or equal to the second execution time threshold 504 [avoiding interpretation because that interpretation is used when the execution time is below threshold 502, see figure]).
Neumann does not explicitly disclose setting, from a user interface receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; the highest value of the one of more cardinality estimates; the highest value; or commencing processing of the query by both compiling and interpreting the source code.
However, in an analogous art, Bossman discloses
setting, from a user interface (e.g., Bossman, par. [0042]: a user interface (UI) 206; par. [0063]: the UI 206 may allow a user to adjust the thresholds considered by the selection module. “Those of skill in the art recognize that making these adjustments available for customization by a user is within the skill of those in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting of thresholds taught by Neumann such that the thresholds are set from a user interface, as taught by Bossman, as Bossman would provide the advantage of a means for a user to customize the system as he or she desires. (See Bossman, par. [0063]).
Further, in an analogous art, Wang discloses:
receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; (e.g., Wang, par. [0058]: the system computes the predicted property tuples for one or more nodes in a query plan; par. [0027]: each node represents a different operator used to generate results for the query)
determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; (e.g., Wang, part. [0054]: the system computes an overall score for the candidate query plan (208). The score can represent a total cost of executing the plan, in terms of tuples produced. The system can sum the cost estimate for each portion of the query plan to generate a final cost estimate to execute the query plan. Alternatively, the maximum of the plurality of portions can be used to compute the final cost)
the highest value of the one of more cardinality estimates (see immediately above) and
the highest value (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardinality estimating of Neumann/Bossman to include receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; and utilizing that highest value as the final estimate, as taught by Wang, as Wang would provide the advantage of a means of producing a higher quality estimation. (See Wang, pars. [0004], [0008]).
Finally, in an analogous art, Westrelin discloses:
commencing processing of the query by both compiling and interpreting the source code (e.g., Westrelin, par. [0123]: the thread that triggered compilation continues executing in interpreted mode, while the compilation runs in the background. When the compilation finishes, subsequent invocations will execute the compiled code; par. [0118]: compilation happens on a separate thresh and will not interrupt the execution of the program. Thus, the virtual machine 104 is able to keep using the original interpreted version of the method until the compiled version is ready)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify second mode of Neumann to include switching the processing to compiled code when the compiled code is available, as taught by Westrelin, as Westrelin would provide the advantage of a means of using the interpreted version of the code immediately while the compiled is not ready, and then using the compiled version to decrease execution time. (See Westrelin, pars. [0118], [0123]).
As to claim 2, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Neumann further discloses:
wherein the one or more cardinality estimates comprises one or more of: an estimated input cardinality, an estimated output cardinality, and an estimated intermediate cardinality (e.g., Neumann, par. [0066]: SR represents an estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set [intermediate cardinality, as the number of elements in the result set would be the output]).
As to claim 3, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Neumann/Bossman/Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously comprises: initiating the compiling after executing the interpreting a predetermined number of times; and switching the processing to compiled code.
However, in an analogous art, Westrelin discloses wherein initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously (see below) comprises:
initiating the compiling after executing the interpreting a predetermined number of times; (e.g., Westrelin, par. [0120]: when an interpreted call is executed the virtual machine 104 may increment an “invocation counter” associated with the called method. When the invocation counter exceeds a compilation threshold, the virtual machine generates a compilation thread to compile/optimize the method; par. [0122]: compilation can be asynchronous) and
switching the processing to compiled code (e.g., Westrelin, par. [0123]: in the asynchronous embodiment, the thread that triggers the compilation continues executing the method in interpreted mode, while the compilation runs in the background “(asynchronously)”. When the compilation finishes, subsequent invocations of the method will continue to execute the compiled code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asynchronous compiling of Neumann to include initiating the asynchronous compiling after executing the interpreting a predetermined number of times and switching the processing to compiled code, as taught by Westrelin, as Westrelin would provide the advantage of a means of reducing execution time while avoiding compilation of infrequently executed code. (See Westrelin, pars. [0123], [0100]).
As to claim 4, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the second mode (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: in the second mode, switching the processing to compiled code when the compiled code is available.
However, in an analogous art, Westrelin discloses:
switching the processing to compiled code when the compiled code is available (e.g., Westrelin, par. [0123]: the thread that triggered compilation continues executing in interpreted mode, while the compilation runs in the background. When the compilation finishes, subsequent invocations will execute the compiled code; par. [0118]: compilation happens on a separate thresh and will not interrupt the execution of the program. Thus, the virtual machine 104 is able to keep using the original interpreted version of the method until the compiled version is ready)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify second mode of Neumann to include switching the processing to compiled code when the compiled code is available, as taught by Westrelin, as Westrelin would provide the advantage of a means of using the interpreted version of the code immediately while the compiled is not ready, and then using the compiled version to decrease execution time. (See Westrelin, pars. [0118], [0123]).
As to claim 6, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Neumann does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are adjustable by a user via the user interface.
However, in an analogous art, Bossman discloses:
wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are adjustable by a user via the user interface; (e.g., Bossman, par. [0042]: a user interface (UI) 206; par. [0063]: the UI 206 may allow a user to adjust the thresholds considered by the selection module. “Those of skill in the art recognize that making these adjustments available for customization by a user is within the skill of those in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting of thresholds taught by Neumann such that the thresholds are adjustable by a user from the user interface, as taught by Bossman, as Bossman would provide the advantage of a means for a user to customize the system as he or she desires. (See Bossman, par. [0063]).
As to claim 8, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimated intermediate cardinality comprises an estimate indicating a number of result tuples of a join operator.
However, Wang discloses:
wherein the estimated intermediate cardinality comprises an estimate indicating a number of result tuples of a join operator (e.g., Wang, par. [0106]: the predicted property can is a number of tuples expected to be produced [cardinality]; par. [0058]: the system computes the predicted property tuples for one or more nodes in a query plan; par. [0027]: each node represents a different operator used to generate results for the query; par. [0042]: for a Join operator, the predicted property can be the number of tuples predicted to be joined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the estimated intermediate cardinality of Neumann/Bossman such that it comprises an estimate indicating a number of result tuples of a join operator, as taught by Wang, as Wang would provide the advantage of a means estimating cardinalities of queries involving join operations, as well as a means of producing a higher quality estimation. (See Wang, pars. [0079], [0004], [0008]).
As to claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Neumann, include:
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which, when executed by at least one process, result in operations (e.g., Neumann, par. [0012]: a non-transitory computer readable medium stores programs for execution by a computer system having one or more processors. The programs include instructions for performing any of the methods described herein) comprising (see rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) in view of Wang (US 2022/0019586) in view of Westrelin (US 2016/0062878) in further view of Ebbo et al. (US 2005/0268292) (art of record – hereinafter Ebbo).
As to claim 5, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: overriding the selected processing mode by triggering compilation earlier than specified by the selected processing mode.
However, in an analogous art, Ebo discloses further comprising:
overriding the selected processing mode by triggering compilation earlier than specified by the selected processing mode (e.g., Ebo, par. [0005]: certain web and application services compile the code objects, rather than interpret the code; par. [0064]: Mort does not change the CompilationMode variable setting, which has a value equal to AUTO; Fig. 24 and associated text, par. [0068]: a page developer would like to force a compilation of the page; as a result, the developer adds the CompilationMode attribute to the page directive. For this case, the develop set the CompilationMode variable to ALWAYS. As a result, ASP.NET will always compile the page regardless of the web.config configuration [earlier than AUTO at least because AUTO first determines whether or not compilation is required before compiling it, see figure]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of processing modes taught by Neumann in include overriding the selected processing mode by triggering compilation earlier than specified by the selected processing mode, as taught by Ebo, as Ebo would provide the advantage of a means for a user force compilation if he or she so desires. (See Ebo, pars. [0068]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) in view of Wang (US 2022/0019586) in view of Westrelin (US 2016/0062878) in further view of Rohatgi et al. (US 12,020,077) (art of record – hereinafter Rohatgi).
As to claim 7, Neumann/Bossman/Wang/Westrelin discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are set at a tenant database level.
However, in an analogous art, Rohatgi discloses:
wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are set at a tenant database level (e.g., Rohatgi, col. 95 ll. 54-56: the data store can include directories for each tenant; col. 156 ll. 1-6: metric thresholds may be specific to a tenant. In this regard, metric thresholds may be established in a manner that is effective or desired for a particular tenant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting of thresholds taught by Neumann/Bossman such that the first threshold and the second threshold are set at a tenant database level, as taught by Rohatgi, as Rohatgi would provide the advantage of a means of establishing thresholds in a manner that is effective or desired for a particular tenant of a shared database system. (See Rohatgi, col. 156 ll. 1-6).
Claims 9-10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) and Wang (US 2022/0019586).
As to claim 9, Neumann discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
setting a first threshold by selecting a value of a first cardinality flag; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0080]: in some implementations, the interpretation criterion [flag] is satisfied when the estimated number of rows [cardinality] that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is less than or equal to threshold 502 [the value of that threshold being preset])
setting a second threshold by selecting a value of a second cardinality flag, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0080]: the compilation criterion [flag] is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed is greater than the first threshold 502 but less than a second threshold 504 [the value of that threshold being preset]), wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are set based on a benchmark data associated with a workload; (e.g., Neumann, par. [0058]: one or more test queries [a workload] are issued to retrieve data from the database 122 for determining the plurality of predefined thresholds [which are benchmarks])
selecting, based on the highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query, one of at least three processing modes for processing the query, (Neumann, Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: The first execution option specifies direct interpretation (510) when the estimated execution time is less than or equal to a first execution time threshold 502 [first mode]. The second execution option specifies compilation (520) with no or little code optimization when the estimated execution time is greater than the first execution time threshold 502 and less than a second execution time threshold 504 [second mode]. The third execution option specifies compilation with a certain level of code optimization (530) when the estimated execution time is greater than or equal to the second execution time threshold 504 [third mode]; par. [0080]: in some implementations, the interpretation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is less than or equal to a first threshold 502. The compilation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is greater than the first threshold 502 but less than a second threshold 504. The optimized compilation criterion is satisfied when the estimated number of rows that will be accessed to retrieve the result set is greater than the second threshold 504)
wherein the at least three processing modes comprises: a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode; (see immediately above)
based on the value being less than or equal to the first threshold, indicating the first mode, commencing processing of the query by interpreting source code and initiating compiling of the source code asynchronously; (These are contingent limitations not required by the claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II). See also, e.g., Neumann, Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: two or more thresholds are used to select the query execution plan from among the query execution options. The first execution option specifies interpretation when the estimated execution time is less than or equal to a first execution time thresholds 502; par. [0083]: some implementations use hybrid approach to selection of the query execution option. For example, when the interpretation is satisfied, some implementations immediately start using the bytecode interpreter, but also initiate compilation in the background [asynchronously, because it is happening at the same time as using the interpreter])
based on the value being between the first threshold and the second threshold, indicating the second mode, commencing processing of the query by both compiling and interpreting the source code; (These are contingent limitations not required by the claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II)) and
based on the value being greater than or equal to the second threshold, indicating the third mode, commencing processing of the query by compiling the source code and avoiding use of an interpreter. (These are contingent limitations not required by the claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04(II). See also, e.g., Neumann, at Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0067]: the third execution option specifies compilation of the intermediate representation when the estimated execution time is greater than or equal to the second execution time threshold 504 [avoiding interpretation because that interpretation is used when the execution time is below threshold 502, see figure]).
Neumann does not explicitly disclose setting, from a user interface; receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; the highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates; or the highest value.
However, in an analogous art, Bossman discloses:
setting, from a user interface (e.g., Bossman, par. [0042]: a user interface (UI) 206; par. [0063]: the UI 206 may allow a user to adjust the thresholds considered by the selection module. “Those of skill in the art recognize that making these adjustments available for customization by a user is within the skill of those in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting of thresholds taught by Neumann such that the thresholds are set from a user interface, as taught by Bossman, as Bossman would provide the advantage of a means for a user to customize the system as he or she desires. (See Bossman, par. [0063]).
Further, in an analogous art, Wang discloses:
receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; (e.g., Wang, par. [0058]: the system computes the predicted property tuples for one or more nodes in a query plan; par. [0027]: each node represents a different operator used to generate results for the query)
determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; (e.g., Wang, part. [0054]: the system computes an overall score for the candidate query plan (208). The score can represent a total cost of executing the plan, in terms of tuples produced. The system can sum the cost estimate for each portion of the query plan to generate a final cost estimate to execute the query plan. Alternatively, the maximum of the plurality of portions can be used to compute the final cost)
the highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates; (see immediately above) and
the highest value (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardinality estimating of Neumann/Bossman to include receiving, from an optimizer, one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of a query; determining a highest value of the one or more cardinality estimates for each operator of the query; and utilizing that highest value as the final estimate, as taught by Wang, as Wang would provide the advantage of a means of producing a higher quality estimation. (See Wang, pars. [0004], [0008]).
As to claim 10, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 14, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) in view of Wang (US 2022/0019586) in further view of Westrelin (US 2016/0062878).
As to claim 11, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) in view of Wang (US 2022/0019586) in further view of Ebbo (US 2005/0268292).
As to claim 13, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US 2021/0334298) in view of Bossman (US 2009/0049012) in view of Wang (US 2022/0019586) in further view of Rohatgi (US 12,020,077).
As to claim 15, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights