DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s Application filed on February 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 20-21, 23, and 25 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 20 are independent. As a result claims 1, 3-7,and 20-25 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 20 Taft does not teach or suggest the following limitation, when the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations, optimizing the initial query plan by moving the aggregation operation from the inner set of query operations to the IO set of query operations to produce an optimized query plan as disclosed in Applicants’ invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions.
With regards to a), Examiner appreciates the interpretation of the description given by Applicant in the response. In Figs. 3-4, para [0114], Taft teaches " As an example, the operation tree 300 may be representative of a query for an index nested loop join as indicated by the operator 302a. The operators 302 may be physical operators as described herein. The edges 304 may represent a flow of data among the operators 302 and/or an order of execution of the operators 302, where data (e.g., data input to the physical operator(s)) moves upward from the bottom-level operations (e.g., operations 302c, 302f, and 302g) of the operation tree 300 to the top level operation (operation 302a) of the operation tree 300 as the operations 302 perform respective physical operations on the data. In the example of FIG. 3, an operation tree 300 for a received query (e.g., SQL query) may include operators 302a, 302b, 302c, 303d, 302e, 302f, and 302g (collectively referred to herein as operators 302)”, para [0129], Taft teaches “physical properties can be used in query optimization to track one or more properties of a relational expression (e.g., such as a physical operator), where the one or more properties of the relational expression enable proper execution of physical operators included in a physical operation tree”, para [0147], Taft teaches “Examples of transformations supported by optimizers can include predicate push-down and join re-ordering transformations. The locality-aware optimizer may support and use one or more transformations configured to generate candidate plans that are optimized for execution in a multi-region database where data is deployed among different database regions”. Therefore, aggregation operation that is predicate push-down and join re-ordering transformations in an operation tree that represents a query for an index nested loop, generating optimized query plan.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. pushing a specific aggregation operation into an IO set of query operations when specific conditions are met within the initial query flow to produce an optimized query plan) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (US 2019/0236194) (hereinafter James) in view of Taft et al. (US 2024/0220498) (hereinafter Taft).
Regarding claim 1, James teaches a database system comprises: a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a computing device cluster of the plurality of computing device clusters includes a plurality of computing devices (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, para [0079-0081], discloses computing devices coupled to one or more respective host devices and a data intake and query system), wherein one or more computing devices of the computing device cluster is operably coupled to: obtain an initial query that includes an initial plurality of query operations (see Fig. 11A, para [0073], para [0270], discloses obtaining initial search query that includes specified criteria that have specific values in defined fields in which a field is defined by an extraction rule), wherein the plurality of query operations has an initial query flow (see Figs. 6A-6B, para [0075], para [0248], discloses late-binding schema (initial query flow) in performing queries on events), wherein the initial query is regarding data of a dataset, wherein the dataset includes a plurality of rows of columnar data, wherein the columnar data includes a plurality of columns of data (see Figs. 11D-12, para [0272-0273], discloses rows of columnar data that includes field-value pair data in a set of events responsive to the initial search query).
James does not explicitly teach obtain an initial query plan for the initial query, wherein the initial query plan includes an input/output (IO) set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of input/output (IO) computing resources of the database system and an inner set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of computing resources of the database system, wherein the inner set of query operations includes an aggregation operation; determining, based on a set of aggregation push-down conditions, whether the aggregation operation can be push-down into the input/output (IO) set of query operations; and when the aggregation operation can be push-down into the input/output (IO) set of query operations, optimizing the initial query plan by moving the aggregation operation from the inner set of query operations to the IO set of query operations to produce an optimized query plan.
Taft teaches obtain an initial query plan for the initial query, wherein the initial query plan includes an input/output (IO) set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of input/output (IO) computing resources of the database system (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 3, para [0125], para [0140], discloses obtaining a candidate query plan that includes sets of operations and utilization of computing resources defining cost of candidate query plan) and an inner set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of computing resources of the database system, wherein the inner set of query operations includes an aggregation operation (see Fig. 3, para [0129], para [0138], discloses aggregation operators that require that the input to the operator is sorted on the join keys or the grouping columns respectively); determining, based on a set of aggregation push-down conditions, whether the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations (see para [0147], para [0149], discloses determining aggregation operation can be predicated push-down and join re-ordering transformations); and when the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations, optimizing the initial query plan by moving the aggregation operation from the inner set of query operations to the IO set of query operations to produce an optimized query plan (see Figs. 3-4, para [0114], para [0129], para [0147], discloses aggregation operation that is predicate push-down and join re-ordering transformations in an operation tree that represents a query for an index nested loop, generating optimized query plan).
James/Taft are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James to include push-down into IO set of query operations from disclosure of Taft. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Taft as “improve the performance of queries executed in a multi-region database stored by a geographically distributed cluster of nodes” (para [0005]) and including push-down into IO set of query operations is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 20, James teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises: a first memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of a computing device cluster of a plurality of computing device clusters (see para [0408], discloses medium), causes the set of computing devices (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, para [0079-0081], discloses computing devices coupled to one or more respective host devices and a data intake and query system)to :obtain an initial query that includes an initial plurality of query operations (see Fig. 11A, para [0073], para [0270], discloses obtaining initial search query that includes specified criteria that have specific values in defined fields in which a field is defined by an extraction rule), wherein the plurality of query operations has an initial query flow (see Figs. 6A-6B, para [0075], para [0248], discloses late-binding schema (initial query flow) in performing queries on events), wherein the initial query is regarding data of a dataset, wherein the dataset includes a plurality of rows of columnar data, wherein the columnar data includes a plurality of columns of data (see Figs. 11D-12, para [0272-0273], discloses rows of columnar data that includes field-value pair data in a set of events responsive to the initial search query).
James does not explicitly teach obtain an initial query plan for the initial query, wherein the initial query plan includes an input/output (IO) set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of input/output (IO) computing resources of a database system and an inner set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of computing resources of the database system, wherein the inner set of query operations includes an aggregation operation; determining, based on a set of aggregation push-down conditions, whether the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations; and a second memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the set of computing devices, causes the set of computing devices to: when the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations, optimize the initial query plan by moving the aggregation operation from the inner set of query operations to the IO set of query operations to produce an optimized query plan.
Taft teaches obtain an initial query plan for the initial query, wherein the initial query plan includes an input/output (IO) set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of input/output (IO) computing resources of the database system (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 3, para [0125], para [0140], discloses obtaining a candidate query plan that includes sets of operations and utilization of computing resources defining cost of candidate query plan) and an inner set of query operations of the plurality of query operations assigned to a set of computing resources of the database system, wherein the inner set of query operations includes an aggregation operation (see Fig. 3, para [0129], para [0138], discloses aggregation operators that require that the input to the operator is sorted on the join keys or the grouping columns respectively); determining, based on a set of aggregation push-down conditions, whether the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations (see para [0147], para [0149], discloses determining aggregation operation can be predicated push-down and join re-ordering transformations); and when the aggregation operation can be push-down into the IO set of query operations, optimizing the initial query plan by moving the aggregation operation from the inner set of query operations to the IO set of query operations to produce an optimized query plan (see Figs. 3-4, para [0114], para [0129], para [0147], discloses aggregation operation that is predicate push-down and join re-ordering transformations in an operation tree that represents a query for an index nested loop, generating optimized query plan).
James/Taft are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James to include push-down into IO set of query operations from disclosure of Taft. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Taft as “improve the performance of queries executed in a multi-region database stored by a geographically distributed cluster of nodes” (para [0005]) and including push-down into IO set of query operations is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 7 and 25, James/Taft teach a system of claim 1 and a medium of claim 20.
James does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more computing devices further optimizes the initial query plan by: adding a higher-order aggregation into the inner set of query operations.
Taft teaches wherein the one or more computing devices further optimizes the initial query plan by: adding a higher-order aggregation into the inner set of query operations (see para [0129], para [0138], discloses adding GROUP BY aggregation operation ).
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Taft as applied to claims 1 and 20, and in further view of Unterbrunner et al. (US 222/0027379) ( hereinafter Unterbrunner).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, James/Taft teach a system of claim 1 and a medium of claim 20.
James/Taft does not explicitly teach wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes a condition requiring that the aggregation operator is not paired with an ORDER BY clause.
Unterbrunner teaches wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes a condition requiring that the aggregation operator is not paired with an ORDER BY clause (see Figs. 7-8, para [0142], para [0326], discloses push a group-by up or down pipeline).
James/Taft/Unterbrunner are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James/Taft to not paired with an ORDER BY clause from disclosure of Unterbrunner. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Unterbrunner as “makes processing more efficient” (para [0037]) and not pairing with an ORDER BY clause is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 4-6 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Taft as applied to claims 1 and 20, and in further view of Weyerhaeuser et al. (US 2017/0322988) (hereinafter Weyerhaeuser).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, James/Taft teach a system of claim 1 and a medium of claim 20.
James/Taft does not explicitly teach wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes at least one of: an input type condition requiring input to the IO operator and the aggregation operator be one of a set of data types; and an output type condition requiring output of the IO operator and the aggregation operator be one of the set of data types.
Weyerhaeuser teaches wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes at least one of: an input type condition requiring input to the IO operator and the aggregation operator be one of a set of data types (see Fig. 1, para [0017], para [0021], discloses input node type condition and nodes for aggregation operations); and an output type condition requiring output of the IO operator and the aggregation operator be one of the set of data types (see Fig. 1, para [0021], discloses output node type condition for aggregation operations).
James/Taft/Weyerhaeuser are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James/Taft to include conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types from disclosure of Weyerhaeuser. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Weyerhaeuser as “provide an efficient way to pass multiple rows of data to a client application” (para [0021]) and including conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 5 and 23, James/Taft teach a system of claim 1 and a medium of claim 20.
James/Taft does not explicitly teach wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes: an aggregation type condition requiring the aggregation be one of a set of aggregation.
Weyerhaeuser teaches wherein the set of aggregation push-down conditions includes: an aggregation type condition requiring the aggregation be one of a set of aggregation (see para [0029], para [0035], discloses aggregation push down conditions).
James/Taft/Weyerhaeuser are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James/Taft to include conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types from disclosure of Weyerhaeuser. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Weyerhaeuser as “provide an efficient way to pass multiple rows of data to a client application” (para [0021]) and including conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 6 and 24, James/Taft teach a system of claim 1 and a medium of claim 20.
James/Taft does not explicitly teach wherein the aggregation operators includes a set of operators that is one or more of: a count aggregation, a summation aggregation, a product aggregation, a maximum aggregation, or a minimum aggregation.
Weyerhaeuser teaches wherein the aggregation operators includes a set of operators that is one or more of: a count aggregation, a summation aggregation, a product aggregation, a maximum aggregation, or a minimum aggregation (see para [0029], discloses product type aggregation type).
James/Taft/Weyerhaeuser are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of James/Taft to include conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types from disclosure of Weyerhaeuser. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Weyerhaeuser as “provide an efficient way to pass multiple rows of data to a client application” (para [0021]) and including conditions requiring IO operator and aggregation operator to be one of a set of data types is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159