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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on August 04, 2025, claims 2-21 are now pending for examination in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 4, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent(s) No. 12032573 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 08/04/2025. In this action claim(s) 2-3, 10, 12-13, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US Pub. No. 20150269228) in view of Deshwal et al. (US Pub. No. 20170116210). The Deshwal et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 11, applicant argues “The claims describe a data processing system that reduces latency by writing incremental results to an output table based on an update mode, so that new rows are added to the output table or modifications to one or more existing rows in the output table are output, without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows to the output table, where the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server. This allows the application server to receive updated rows as they are triggered at time increment, without the data processing system re-writing the unchanged rows of the output table. This simply is a technical improvement to data processing systems and a practical application.”
Examiner’s Reply:
The inputting and receiving of streaming data steps recite insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering. Determining outputs of a streaming query does not improve the functioning of a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 2, 12, and 21 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 2, 12, and 21 the newly added limitations of “without output to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server.”
Dependent claims 3-11 and 13-20 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 2-11), storage medium (claims 12-20), and system (claim 21) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 2, 12, and 21 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 2, 12, and 21 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
operations are performed using a set of operators (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to specify query operations);
determining an output mode for the streaming query as an update mode, the output mode specifying how results of the streaming query are written to an output table (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a mode); and
responsive to determining that each operator of the set of operators can output results according to the update mode (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining output results), performing, for each of one or more time increments:
executing the set of operations for the streaming query based on at least the input data for the current time increment to generate incremental results for the set of operations (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate results);
evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to adding rows to a table).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 2, 12, and 21:
a computer processor; and (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function)
a memory (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) comprising stored instructions that when executed by the computer processor causes the computer system to:
receiving, from a client device, a request to perform a streaming query on a data table,
receiving input data for the data table for a current time increment (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering),
for each of one or more time increments, writing results to a second output table for the current time increment in a data storage system (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to outputting data),
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 2, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful aggregate, or a stateful aggregate with watermark query (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as an append mode (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a mode).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query); and
writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising adding new rows to the second output table that do not change during future triggers.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a join, or a left outer join query (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a delta mode (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a mode).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query);
for each of one or more time increments, writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising adding new rows to the second output table or deleting one or more existing rows of the second output table that were output at previous time increments (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to writing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful top-K, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a stateful aggregate with algebraic, or a left outer join query (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a complete mode (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a mode).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query);
writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising writing all rows to the second output table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to writing data).
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, an aggregate, a top-K, a stateful top-K, a sort, a limit, a stateful aggregate, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a join, or a left outer join query (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a query.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
generating an input table by combining previous input data for previous time increments and the input data for the current time increment (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate a table).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
executing the set of operations for the streaming query on the input table (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to executing an operation).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10, 12-13, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US Pub. No. 20150269228) in view of Deshwal et al. (US Pub. No. 20230120592).
With respect to claim 2, Fisher et al. teaches a method for executing a streaming query, comprising:
receiving, from a client device(client device, See Fig. 1), a request to perform a streaming query on a data table (Paragraph 39 discloses a streaming query), the streaming query specifying a set of operations on data of the data table, wherein the set of operations are performed using a set of operators (Paragraph 31 discloses execute streaming operations);
determining an output mode for the streaming query as an update mode, the output mode specifying how results of the streaming query are written to an output table (Paragraph 38 discloses the output of the streaming query O.sub.p can be defined); and
responsive to determining that each operator of the set of operators can output results according to the update mode, performing, for each of one or more time increments:
receiving input data for the data table for a current time increment (Paragraph 38 discloses input data),
executing, by a cluster computing system, the set of operations for the streaming query based on at least the input data for the current time increment to generate incremental results for the set of operations (Paragraph 31 discloses execute streaming operations and Paragraph 38 discloses output results), and
for each of one or more time increments, writing results of the streaming query to output table for the current time increment (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices), comprising:
adding new rows to the output table or outputting modifications to one or more existing rows stored in of the output table that were output at previous time increments (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices). Fisher et al. does not disclose without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server.
However, Deshwal et al. teaches without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server (Paragraph 57 discloses store the data in tables within a tiered storage system across one or more computing devices and 55 discloses the components 302 through 312 can be implemented using different application server nodes and/or database server nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. with Deshwal et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Deshwal et al. Paragraph(s) 2.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 3, Fisher et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful aggregate, or a stateful aggregate with watermark query (Paragraph 21 discloses Stream engines can thus implement streaming, continuous queries).
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 10, Fisher et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein executing the set of operations for the streaming query further comprises:
generating an input table by combining previous input data for previous time increments and the input data for the current time increment (Paragraph 57 discloses last data item in a left side input table may join with the first item on the right side input table. As a result, memory usage can monotonically increase over the lifetime of the streaming query. However, note that some interactive streaming queries do not necessarily run to completion and thus memory usage is not necessarily an issue in practice); and
executing the set of operations for the streaming query on the input table (Paragraph 57 discloses last data item in a left side input table may join with the first item on the right side input table. As a result, memory usage can monotonically increase over the lifetime of the streaming query. However, note that some interactive streaming queries do not necessarily run to completion and thus memory usage is not necessarily an issue in practice).
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 11, Fisher et al. teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
for the set of operations of the streaming query, generating a logical query plan including a set of ordered operators (Paragraph 25 discloses Using a conventional relational query, one approach to provide the user with an answer would be to build a query plan (e.g., tree) of operators such as SELECT, JOIN, etc. The query plan can read the entire data set of N rows and process them as a whole to produce an output that gives the requested average delays for each day of the week);
generating a plurality of physical query plans from the logical query plan, wherein a physical query plan includes one or more operators each associated with an operator input mode and an operator output mode (Using a conventional relational query, one approach to provide the user with an answer would be to build a query plan (e.g., tree) of operators such as SELECT, JOIN, etc. The query plan can read the entire data set of N rows and process them as a whole to produce an output that gives the requested average delays for each day of the week); and
for each physical query plan, determining a cost function for executing the physical query plan, the cost function for the physical query plan based at least on the operator input modes and the operator output modes for the one or more operators of the physical query plan (Using a conventional relational query, one approach to provide the user with an answer would be to build a query plan (e.g., tree) of operators such as SELECT, JOIN, etc. The query plan can read the entire data set of N rows and process them as a whole to produce an output that gives the requested average delays for each day of the week).
With respect to claim 12, Fisher et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions executable by a processor, the instructions when executed causing the processor to:
receive, from a client device (client device, See Fig. 1), a request to perform a streaming query on a data table (Paragraph 39 discloses a streaming query), the streaming query specifying a set of operations on data of the data table, wherein the set of operations are performed using a set of operators;
determine an output mode for the streaming query as an update mode, the output mode specifying how results of the streaming query are written to an output table (Paragraph 38 discloses input data); and
responsive to determining that each operator of the set of operators can output results according to the update mode, perform, for each of one or more time increments:
receive input data for the data table for a current time increment (Paragraph 38 discloses input data),
execute, by a cluster computing system, the set of operations for the streaming query based on at least the input data for the current time increment to generate incremental results for the set of operations (Paragraph 31 discloses execute streaming operations and Paragraph 38 discloses output results), and
for each of one or more time increments, write results of the streaming query to output table for the current time increment (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices), comprising:
add new rows to the output table or outputting modifications to one or more existing rows stored in of the output table that were output at previous time increments (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices). Fisher et al. does not disclose without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server.
However, Deshwal et al. teaches without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server (Paragraph 57 discloses store the data in tables within a tiered storage system across one or more computing devices and 55 discloses the components 302 through 312 can be implemented using different application server nodes and/or database server nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. with Deshwal et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Deshwal et al. Paragraph(s) 2.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 20, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 10, because claim 20 is substantially equivalent to claim 10.
With respect to claim 21, Fisher et al. teaches a computer system, comprising:
a computer processor (Fig. 1 discloses a processor); and
a memory (Fig. 1 discloses a memory) comprising stored instructions that when executed by the computer processor causes the computer system to:
receive, from a client device (client device, See Fig. 1), a request to perform a streaming query on a data table (Paragraph 39 discloses a streaming query), the streaming query specifying a set of operations on data of the data table, wherein the set of operations are performed using a set of operators;
determine an output mode for the streaming query as an update mode, the output mode specifying how results of the streaming query are written to an output table (Paragraph 38 discloses the output of the streaming query O.sub.p can be defined); and
responsive to determining that each operator of the set of operators can output results according to the update mode, perform, for each of one or more time increments:
receive input data for the data table for a current time increment (Paragraph 38 discloses input data),
execute, by a cluster computing system, the set of operations for the streaming query based on at least the input data for the current time increment to generate incremental results for the set of operations (Paragraph 31 discloses execute streaming operations and Paragraph 38 discloses output results), and
for each of one or more time increments, write results of the streaming query to output table for the current time increment (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices), comprising:
add new rows to the output table or outputting modifications to one or more existing rows stored in of the output table that were output at previous time increments (Paragraph 45 discloses incremental results can be obtained from the stream engine. For example, the adapter module can obtain the results and, as they are obtained, provide them to the user by sending them over the network to one or more of the client devices). Fisher et al. does not disclose without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server.
However, Deshwal et al. teaches without outputting to one or more other unchanged rows of the output table, wherein the output table is stored in a distributed system in communication with an application server (Paragraph 57 discloses store the data in tables within a tiered storage system across one or more computing devices and 55 discloses the components 302 through 312 can be implemented using different application server nodes and/or database server nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. with Deshwal et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Deshwal et al. Paragraph(s) 2.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US Pub. No. 20150269228) and Deshwal et al. (US Pub. No. 20230120592) in further view of Park et al. (US Pub. No. 20170116210).
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 4, Fisher et al. discloses receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (Paragraph 21 discloses streaming, continuous queries over changing data streams).
Fisher et al. as modified by Deshwal et al. does not disclose determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as an append mode.
However, Park et al. teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as an append mode (the state is persisted into the storage medium in append only mode with relevant data and metadata for later recovery, See Paragraph 156); and
writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising adding new rows to the second output table that do not change during future triggers (the state is persisted into the storage medium in append only mode with relevant data and metadata for later recovery, See Paragraph 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. and Deshwal et al. with Park et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Park et al. Paragraph(s) 5-13.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. and Park et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 5, Park et al. teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a join, or a left outer join query (Paragraph 21 discloses Stream engines can thus implement streaming, continuous queries). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 4 provided above, combining the Fisher et al. reference and the Park et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 5.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. and Park et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 6, Fisher et al. discloses receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (Paragraph 21 discloses streaming, continuous queries over changing data streams).
Fisher et al. does not disclose determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a delta mode.
However, Park et al. teaches determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a delta mode (performing log based fast state storage for preserving the state of the operators of a continuous query in a distributed fault tolerant storage medium, See Paragraph 156);
for each of one or more time increments, writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising adding new rows to the second output table or deleting one or more existing rows of the second output table that were output at previous time increments (the state is persisted into the storage medium in append only mode with relevant data and metadata for later recovery, See Paragraph 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. with Park et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Park et al. Paragraph(s) 5-13.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. and Park et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6. With respect to claim 7, Park et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, a stateful top-K, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a stateful aggregate with algebraic, or a left outer join query (Paragraph 21 discloses Stream engines can thus implement streaming, continuous queries and Paragraph 21 discloses build a query plan (e.g., tree) of operators such as SELECT, JOIN, etc). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 6 provided above, combining the Fisher et al. reference and the Park et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 7.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 8, Fisher et al. discloses receiving a second request to perform a second streaming query on the data table or a second data table (Paragraph 21 discloses streaming, continuous queries over changing data streams).
Fisher et al. does not disclose determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a complete mode.
However, Park et al. teaches determining a second output mode for the second streaming query as a complete mode performing log based fast state storage for preserving the state of the operators of a continuous query in a distributed fault tolerant storage medium, See Paragraph 156; and
writing results to a second output table for the current time increment, comprising writing all rows to the second output table (the state is persisted into the storage medium in append only mode with relevant data and metadata for later recovery, See Paragraph 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fisher et al. with Park et al. This would have provided processing flexibility required for handling today's events processing needs. See Park et al. Paragraph(s) 5-13.
The Fisher et al. reference as modified by Deshwal et al. and Park et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 9, Park et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the streaming query is one or a combination of a filter, a map, an aggregate, a top-K, a stateful top-K, a sort, a limit, a stateful aggregate, a stateful aggregate with watermark, a join, or a left outer join query (Paragraph 21 discloses Stream engines can thus implement streaming, continuous queries and Paragraph 21 discloses build a query plan (e.g., tree) of operators such as SELECT, JOIN, etc). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 8 provided above, combining the Fisher et al. reference and the Park et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 9.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20160004751 is directed to OPTIMIZED QUERY EXECUTION IN A DISTRIBUTED DATA STREAM PROCESSING ENVIRONMENT: [0036] controlling the processing of a data stream by a data stream processing system comprising a plurality of DSMSs, wherein each DSMS is arranged to execute a respective continuous query comprising an operator arranged to operate on windowed portions of the input data stream to generate an output data stream comprising continuous query execution results, and wherein during reception of the data to be processed as a windowed portion of the data stream, the DSMS receiving the data stream changes. The method comprises predicting how the identity of the DSMS receiving the data stream will change based on prior receptions of the data stream by the DSMSs. The method further comprises determining the size of a window used to obtain the windowed portion of the data stream and selecting, for processing of the windowed portion of the data stream, based on the prediction and the determined window size, a single DSMS of the plurality of DSMSs that is to execute the respective continuous query. The method further comprises generating a control signal to cause only the selected DSMS to execute the continuous query using data in the data stream received thereby, so that the continuous query is executed on data in the windowed portion of the data stream only by the selected DSMS.
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights