DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 31 January 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
Additional prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
20160239544
Pars. 21-26, 41
“The optimizer algorithm is written as a rule engine, applying top-down or bottom-up transformations to the query plans. Some heuristic rules like column projection and limit pushdown are implemented in a top-down traversal… Cost-based pruning is applied to keep the most optimal plan…”
20170193054
Pars. 52-55
“The optimizer can apply heuristic rules such as column projection and limit pushdown to perform top-down and bottom up node transformations… The rule-based optimization can apply a set of optimization rules to determine an efficient execution plan. The cost-based optimization can collect statistics about the tables, indexes, and data distribution, compute execution costs of alternative plans, and selects the cheapest plan.”
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13, 14 are objected to because they refer to claim 8’s “one or more processing nodes” as “the plurality of processing nodes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 includes “the MULTIPLY operator specifying match columns and partition columns and optionally a combine and reduce over one or more value columns…and value columns participating in the combine and reduce.” Claim 8 includes “a matrix multiplication (MULTIPLY) operator specifying match columns and partition columns and optionally a combine and reduce over one or more value columns…value columns participating in the combine and reduce.” Claim 15 includes “the MULTIPLY operator designates match columns for dimensional alignment and partition columns for output structure and optionally specifies a combine and reduce over one or more value columns.” Claims 4 and 11 include “determining which value columns are referenced in expressions defining the combine and reduce.”
The specification broadly describes matrix multiplication semantics, operators, combining partition-based results in the context of re-written query plans, etc. See pars. 56 and 61-65 of the published specification. However, the specification’s general discussion of matrix multiplication and combining partition results does not describe a MULTIPLY operator that specifies a combine and reduce over one or more column as claimed in claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 2 includes “The method of claim 1, wherein each MRelation comprises tuples having ROW and COLUMN identifiers that together form a composite primary key, and wherein VALUE comprises one or more data columns functionally dependent on the composite primary key.” Nothing in the specification discloses at least “ROW and COLUMN identifiers that together form a composite primary key”. The closest disclosure is in par. 48 of the published specification which includes “a function dependency from the row, column columns to the value columns. We represent this as a primary key in the figure above” which says nothing about identifiers of row and column. Claims 9 and 16 include the same or similar subject matter and are therefore likewise rejected, as are all respective dependent claims.
Claim 3 includes that an identifier comprises a compound key having multiple attributes with semantic meaning corresponding to problem domain dimensions. Although pars. 48-50 of the specification discuss compound row/column indices and problem domain semantics, it does not describe compound key attributes as problem domain dimensions or multiple sub-fields representing semantic dimensions of a problem domain. Claims 10 and 17 include the same or similar subject matter and are therefore likewise rejected, as are all respective dependent claims.
Claim 5 includes “The method of claim 1, wherein the sparsity metrics comprise at least one of a ratio of non-zero entries to total possible entries for each input MRelation, per-row sparsity distributions, per-column sparsity distributions, or sampled sparsity patterns for sub-regions of each input MRelation.” The specification does not describe these particular metrics, distributions, regional density variations, or sampled sub-regions. The specification describes usings statistics and sparse matrices but in a much broader and general manner. Additionally, the specification does not use the terms “region” and “sub-region”. Claims 12 and 19 include the same or similar subject matter and are therefore likewise rejected, as are all respective dependent claims.
Claim 6 includes limitations directed to estimating computation cost that are not supported by the specification at such a level of specificity. Par. 56 of the published specification broadly discloses an upper bound of O(nxmxp) and that sparse inputs may reduce cost; however, this is not the same as the narrower limitations required by new claim 6. Claims 13 and 20 include the same or similar subject matter and are therefore likewise rejected, as are all respective dependent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 1 and 8 include “the determined subset of columns”. Claim 1 includes “the data in the schema”. There insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 1 and 8 include “columns participating in the combine and reduce” and claims 4 and 11 include “expressions defining the combine and reduce.” However, since the combine and reduce was previously established as being optional in claims 1 and 8, it is not clear what the scope of these limitations is. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 1 and 8 include “partition/output dimensions.” It is not clear what this means. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 6 includes “interaction of sparsity patterns between the first and second input MRelations”. The phrase “interaction” is undefined; it is unclear what computation or relationship between sparsity patterns constitutes the claimed interaction. Claim 20 includes “expected interaction between sparsity patterns of the first and second input matrices”. The expectation and the interaction are both undefined and unclear. Claim 13 includes the same or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 15 includes “choose the modified query execution plan for execution when its estimated execution cost is favorable compared to an unmodified query execution plan”. The term “favorable” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “favorable” is not defined by the claim or specification. It is not clear whether “favorable” means lower estimated execution cost, lower runtime, reduced memory usage, reduced data movement, reduced number of rows and columns that are processed, etc.
Claim 20 includes “theoretical maximum cost” which is undefined and which suggests that the maximum cost is hypothetical and/or speculative. Accordingly, the claim indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 the parsing, generating, rewriting, estimating, selecting, execute, analyze, determine, modify, insert, compute, choose cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and also as a mathematical calculation (mathematical concepts abstract idea) - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I includes “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication)…”. The receiving, dispatching limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components (i.e., processing nodes, storage device, optimizer module, processor). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, the recited limitations cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and also as a mathematical calculation (mathematical concepts abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the new grounds of rejections set forth in this office action are overcome by amendment, and if no further grounds of rejection are warranted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 31 January 2026 have been fully considered; the remarks do not present a particular substantive argument requiring a separate examiner response. In view of newly claimed subject matter presented in claims 1-20, new grounds of rejections are set forth in this office action.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights