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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on July 22, 2024.
2. Claims 1-24 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-24 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) contains 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.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “adjusting, by a processing device based on the performance, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.” However, the features “timing,” “adjusting … a timing,” and “a different timing associated with processing the request” cannot be found/are not described in the specification. Depedendent claims are also rejected because they depend on the reject claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “determining a performance associated with processing one or more queries; receiving a request to process data stored on a storage platform; and adjusting, by a processing device based on the performance, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (processing device, memory, computer-readable medium) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 3: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 4: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 6: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 10: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 11: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 12: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 13: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 14: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 15: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 16: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 18: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 19: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 20: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 21: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 22: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 23: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 24: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Double Patenting Rejection
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131 (c). A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,257. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the present application are just broader versions of the patent claims.
US Patent 12,452,257
Present Application
1. A method comprising: monitoring a processing of one or more queries by a data warehouse, the data warehouse comprising one or more processing resources and a storage platform; receiving a request to process database data stored on the storage platform; determining a performance of the processed request as observed by a user device; and adjusting, by a processing device based on the performance of the processed request, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adding at least one additional processor to the data warehouse; or adding at least one additional storage device to the data warehouse.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and removing the at least one additional processor from the data warehouse.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein adding the at least one additional processor to the data warehouse is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries based on the performance of the processed request comprises: delaying the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting, by the processing device, the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries based on the performance of the processed request comprises determining that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each processing resource of the one or more processing resources comprises a plurality of processors each comprising a data cache.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the one or more processing resources of the data warehouse.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
10. A system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: monitor a processing of one or more queries by a data warehouse, the data warehouse comprising one or more processing resources and a storage platform; receive a request to process database data stored on the storage platform; determine a performance of the processed request as observed by a user device; and adjust, based on the performance of the processed request, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the processing device is further to: add at least one additional processor to the data warehouse; or add at least one additional storage device to the data warehouse.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processing device is further to: determine that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and remove the at least one additional processor from the data warehouse.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein to add the at least one additional processor to the data warehouse is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
14. The system of claim 10, wherein to adjust the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries based on the performance of the processed request, the processing device is further to: delay the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
15. The system of claim 10, wherein to adjust, by the processing device, the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries based on the performance of the processed request, the processing device is further to determine that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
16. The system of claim 10, wherein each processing resource of the one or more processing resources comprises a plurality of processors each comprising a data cache.
17. The system of claim 10, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the one or more processing resources of the data warehouse.
18. The system of claim 10, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: monitor a processing of one or more queries by a data warehouse, the data warehouse comprising one or more processing resources and a storage platform; receive a request to process database data stored on the storage platform; determine a performance of the processed request as observed by a user device; and adjust, by the processing device based on the performance of the processed request, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: add at least one additional processor to the data warehouse; or add at least one additional storage device to the data warehouse.
21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: determine that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and remove the at least one additional processor from the data warehouse.
22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein adding the at least one additional processor to the data warehouse is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: delay the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: determine that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
25. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein each processing resource of the one or more processing resources comprises a plurality of processors each comprising a data cache.
26. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the one or more processing resources of the data warehouse.
27. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
1. A method comprising: determining a performance associated with processing one or more queries; receiving a request to process data stored on a storage platform; and adjusting, by a processing device based on the performance, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adding at least one additional processor to a processing platform to process the one or more queries; or
adding at least one additional storage device to the storage platform.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and removing the at least one additional processor from the processing platform.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein adding the at least one additional processor to the processing platform is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the processing platform.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries further comprises: delaying the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries comprises determining that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
9. A system, comprising: a memory; and
a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: determine a performance associated with processing one or more queries; receive a request to process data stored on a storage platform; and adjust, based on the performance, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the processing device is further to: add at least one additional processor to a processing platform to process the one or more queries; or add at least one additional storage device to the storage platform.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the processing device is further to: determine that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and remove the at least one additional processor from the processing platform.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein to add the at least one additional processor to the processing platform is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the processing platform.
14. The system of claim 9, wherein to adjust the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries, the processing device is further to:
delay the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
15. The system of claim 9, wherein to adjust the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries, the processing device is further to determine that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
16. The system of claim 9, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: determine a performance associated with processing one or more queries; receive a request to process data stored on a storage platform; and adjust, by the processing device based on the performance, a timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: add at least one additional processor to a processing platform to process the one or more queries; or add at least one additional storage device to the storage platform.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: determine that the at least one additional processor is no longer needed; and remove the at least one additional processor from the processing platform.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein adding the at least one additional processor to the processing platform is accomplished without affecting a storage capacity of the storage platform.
21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from the processing platform.
22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: delay the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries.
23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to: determine that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay.
24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the request
comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
8. 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.
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.
9. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0212277 to Bodik et al. (hereafter “Bodik”) in view of US 2014/0214798 to Nica et al. (hereafter “Nica”).
Claim 1.
Bodik discloses a method comprising:
determining a performance associated with processing one or more tasks/jobs (0019, 0022, 0038, 0075, calculate/predict time to complete a specific job/task);
receiving a request to process data stored on a storage platform (FIG.5A, FIG.5B, and related text); and
adjusting, by a processing device based on the performance (0059, based on estimated performance data and target performance data),
adjusting a timing associated with the processing of the one or more tasks/jobs (0022, 0053, 0057, slow down processing time/increase a timing associated with tasks/jobs ahead of schedules)
to adjust a different timing associated with processing the request (0020, 0022, 0049, 0050, speed up processing time/reduce a timing associated with tasks/jobs behind schedules).
Bodik does not disclose queries.
However, Nica discloses queries (0056, 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nica’s teaching into Bodik‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to estimate resources for a query optimization process as suggested by Nica (0056, 0058).
Claim 6.
Bodik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries further comprises: delaying the timing associated with the processing of the one or more tasks/jobs (0022, 0053, 0057, removing resources processing tasks/jobs ahead of schedules to delay/slow down processing the tasks/jobs ahead of schedules).
Bodik does not disclose queries.
However, Nica discloses queries (0056, 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nica’s teaching into Bodik‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to estimate resources for a query optimization process as suggested by Nica (0056, 0058).
Claim 8.
Bodik does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request.
However, Nica discloses the request comprises a data retrieval request or a data storage request (0056, 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nica’s teaching into Bodik‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to estimate resources for a query optimization process as suggested by Nica (0056, 0058).
Claims 9, 14, and 16.
These claims are system versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1, 6 and 8, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Claims 17, 22, and 24.
These claims are medium versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1, 6, and 8, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
10. Claims 2-5, 10-13, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodik, Nica, and further in view of US 2010/0011368 to Arakawa et al. (hereafter “Arakawa”).
Claim 2.
Bodik does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
condition (i) holds false: or
condition (ii) holds true: adding at least one additional storage device to the storage platform.
However, Arakawa discloses adding at least one additional storage device to the storage platform (0152).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arakawa’s teaching into Bodik and Nica‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to to provide for partitioned storage resources and services in a information system as suggested by Arakawa (0004).
Claim 3.
condition (i) in claim 2 still holds false
Claim 4.
condition (i) in claim 2 still holds false
Claim 5.
Arakawa disclosed the method of claim 2, wherein the storage platform is physically separate from a processing platform (FIG.1 and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arakawa’s teaching into Bodik and Nica’s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to to provide for partitioned storage resources and services in a information system as suggested by Arakawa (0004).
Claims 10-13.
These claims are system versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 2-5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Claims 18-21.
These claims are medium versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 2-5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claims 7, 15, and 23 are not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the timing associated with the processing of the one or more queries comprises determining that a current query processing delay would exceed a threshold delay,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claims 7, 15, and 23 into claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, resolving the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, resolving the double patenting rejection, and resolving the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights