DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted September 2, 2025 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-9 and 11-25 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on September 2, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos. 12079244, 11494407, 11238060, 11216485, 10762106, 10534792 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyerhaeuser et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0372365) in view of Rossholm et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0010326) and further in view Singamshetty et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0280020).
Claims 1, 11 and 19: Weyerhaeuser discloses a system, a method and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising:
initiating, within a first processor, a first parallel execution process in a query plan to process a set of data and generate an intermediate result of a query [0028, 0034]. [See at least using parallel processes for generating results, including intermediate results. ]
Weyerhaeuser alone does not explicitly disclose providing, by the first processor, during execution of the query plan, the intermediate result to a second set of processors for processing by a plurality of secondary parallel execution processes within the second set of processors.
However, Weyerhaeuser [0028] discloses providing intermediate results in parallel and Rossholm [0022] describes sending an intermediate result from one processor to another processor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weyerhaeuser with Rossholm. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process results faster by utilizing multiple processors.
Weyerhaeuser alone also does not explicitly disclose wherein the query plan comprises a tree-shaped execution plan.
However, Singamshetty [0017] discloses an execution plan for a query that is “a tree comprising a hierarchy of join operators.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weyerhaeuser with Singamshetty. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to identify a hierarchy of operations in the query.
Weyerhaeuser as modified further discloses:
initiating, by the second set of processors, the plurality of secondary parallel execution processes to process the intermediate result to generate a plurality of secondary results [0028, 0034]. [See at least using parallel processes for generating results, including intermediate results. ]
storing a final result to a storage device [0033].
Claim 2: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the intermediate result and the plurality of second results is not materialized [0034-0035].
Claims 3, 13 and 21: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system, the method and the medium of Claims 1, 11 and 19 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the system generates a final consumption operation without writing the plurality of second results to the storage device [0034]. [See at least results being stored in a view only for a particular query.]
Claims 4 and 16: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the query plan comprises at least one of: a grouping set; a roll-up; or a cube aggregate [0027].
Claims 5 and 17: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses
wherein each of the plurality of secondary parallel execution processes are different from one another [0026]. [See at least using different joins. Also see at least using split and merge operations.]
Claims 7, 13 and 21: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system, the method and the medium of Claims 1, 11 and 19 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the one or more processors generate a final consumption operation without writing the plurality of second results to the storage device [0034-0035].
Claims 8 and 23: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system and the medium of Claims 1 and 19 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the query plan comprises a window aggregate [0026]. [See at least a merge operation for different partitions, as is consistent with a definition of the instant specification at [0026].
Claims 9 and 24: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system and the medium of Claims 1 and 19 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the first parallel execution process pushes the intermediate result to the plurality of secondary parallel execution processes without buffering the intermediate result [0028]. [Weyerhaeuser does not push results using buffering.]
Claims 14 and 22: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the method and the medium of Claims 11 and 19 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the intermediate result is not materialized [0034].
Claim 15: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the method of Claim 11 above, and Weyerhaeuser further discloses wherein the plurality of second results is not materialized [0034].
Claims 6, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyerhaeuser et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0372365) in view of Rossholm et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0010326) further in view Singamshetty et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0280020) and further in view of Burger et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0059817).
Claims 6, 18 and 25: Weyerhaeuser as modified discloses the system, the method and the medium of Claims 1, 11 and 19 above but Weyerhaeuser alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a final consumption operation is delayed until a completion of the plurality of secondary parallel execution processes.
However, Burger [0060-0061, 0098] discloses delaying portion of an execution plan. That means that at least operation of a secondary operator will be delayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weyerhaeuser with Burger. One would have been motivated to do so in order to at least to “monitor workload performance” for optimal execution.
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163