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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 June 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejection of claim(s) 1, 11, 6, 16, 8, 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Note applicant argues the claims as amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection of all pending claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Siddiqui et al (US 20200349161 A1) of record provided by the applicant, also of record in parent application 18055502 now U.S. Patent 12235840, further in view of Hu et al (US 20220050843 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Siddiqui substantially discloses teaches or suggests a method that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving by data processing hardware, a database query (see at least 0005);
generating by the data processing hardware and based on the database query, a set of query plans each configured to execute the database query (see at least Fig.2);
for each respective query plan in the set of query plans,
determining by the data processing hardware and using a trained model (see at least 0005), one or more predicted aspects of the respective query plan (see at least 0024 predicted latency) a corresponding query plan score (see at least Fig.2);
the difference is Siddiqui does not specifically show the database query including a plurality of bound predicate values;
however it is customary in the art to include such features in query as shown by Hu (see at least 0055: a query can include information obtained from a database column, a set of input values, an intermediate result generated by a previous logical step or any suitable combination thereof),
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include bound predicate values while implementing the method of Siddiqui in order to allow users to specify a particular value range when querying relational databases using SQL as shown by Hu;
Siddiqui/Hu further teaches
Selecting by the data processing hardware and based on the corresponding query plan score determined for each respective query plan, a respective one of the query plans from the set of query plans (see at least Siddiqui Fig.2); and
executing the database query using the respective one of the query plans (see at least Siddiqui 0005).
Regarding claim 2, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the database query comprises a Structured Query Language (SQL) query (see at least Siddiqui 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the set of query plans comprises generating the set of query plans using a database query planner (see at least Siddiqui Figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the respective one of the query plans is based on an amount of memory available or an amount of cache available (see at least Siddiqui 0049).
Regarding claim 5, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the respective one of the query plans is based on a predicted latency of each query plan of the set of query plans (see at least Siddiqui 0024).
Regarding claim 7, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the respective one of the query plans is based on a predicted resource usage of each query plan of the set of query plans (see at least Siddiqui 0025).
Regarding claim 9, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to generating the set of query plans, selecting a query template from a set of query templates (see at least Siddiqui 0135).
Regarding claim 10, Siddiqui/Hu further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein generating the set of query plans comprises generating the set of query plans using the selected query template (see at least Siddiqui 0134).
Claims 11-15, 17, 19-20 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 in form of system thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 above.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui et al (US 20200349161 A1) of record, in view of Hu et al (US 20220050843 A1), further in view of He, Henry: "Storage: How 'tail latency' impacts customer-facing applications", 13 August 2019 (2019-08-13), XP093021814, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://www.computer weekly.com/opinion/Storage-How-tail-latency-impacts-customer facing- applications [retrieved on 2023-02-07], 6 pages, provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 6, Siddiqui/Hu does not specifically show the method of claim 5, wherein the predicted latency comprises a tail latency. However tail latency as shown by He slows down responses to I/O requests thus should be taken into consideration when selecting a query plan. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Siddiqui/Hu in order to obtain the most effective query plans for customer-facing applications as taught by He.
Claim 16 essentially recites the limitations of claim 6 in form of a system thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui et al (US 20200349161 A1) of record, in view of Hu et al (US 20220050843 A1), further in view of Singh R, Sharma S, Singh S, Singh B. Reducing Run-time Execution in Query Optimization. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2014 Jan 1;96(6) of record in parent application 18055502 now U.S. Patent 12235840.
Regarding claim 8, Siddiqui/Hu does not specifically show the method of claim 1, wherein: each query plan of the set of query plans comprises a hint string; and selecting the respective one of the query plans is based on the hint string of each query plan of the set of query plans.
However it is customary in the art for query plans to contain query hints for performance optimization of queries as shown by Singh S et al (see at least 2.2 Plan Guide).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Siddiqui/Hu in order to optimize performance of queries based on contexts as shown by Singh.
Claim 18 essentially recites the limitations of claim 8 in form of a system thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 8 above.
Double Patenting
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12235840, further in view of Hu et al (US 20220050843 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the amended claims of the instant application merely slightly differ from claims 1-18 of the U.S. Patent in wording, are merely broader than the claims of the U.S. Patent with the now added features of “the database query including a plurality of bound predicate values”. Claim 1 of the instant application removes limitations present in claim 1 of the U.S. Patent for example:
"requesting a database to conditionally return one or more data blocks stored at the database, the database stored on memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware and the database query comprising a plurality of respective parameters characterizing the database query"
However it is obvious to remove limitations to broaden a claim.
Note also the language and the order of the recited limitations of claim 1 are slightly different than the language and the order recited in claim 1 of the U.S. Patent, for example "selecting the respective one of the query plans" VS. "selecting the query plan".
However the meanings are similar.
The difference is the U.S. Patent does not claim the now added features of “the database query including a plurality of bound predicate values”,
however it is customary in the art to include such features in query as shown by Hu (see at least 0055: a query can include information obtained from a database column, a set of input values, an intermediate result generated by a previous logical step or any suitable combination thereof),
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include bound predicate values while implementing the claims of the U.S. Patent in order to allow users to specify a particular value range when querying relational databases using SQL as shown by Hu;
Note also the limitations of claims 9, 10 that depend from claim 1 of the instant application also map to limitations of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application similarly maps to system claim 10 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-8, 12-18 of the instant application are mere duplicates of claims 2-8, 12-18 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 9-10, 18-20 of the instant application are mere obvious variations of claims 1, 10 of the U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sinclair et al (US 11188538 B2) teach a first query execution plan generated for a query on a second time the query was processed by a database is compared against a dynamically generated second query plan generated based on statistics only dynamic feedback for the second time the query is processed by the database. A determination is made on the second time as to whether to cache the first query execution plan, the second query execution plan, or no plan for third or more times the query is processed by the database. The query can be non-parameterized or parameterized.
Barsness et al (US 8682875 B2) teach providing techniques for generating statistics for optimizing database queries containing user-defined functions (UDFs). In general, the statistics may be generated based on output values produced during past executions of a UDF. The statistics may also be generated based on input values received during past executions of the UDF. Additionally, the statistics may include input and output value pairs, such that a UDF output may be determined based on a UDF input. The generated statistics may be used by a query optimizer to determine an efficient query plan for executing the database query.
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 UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 28 August 2026
Prosecution Insights