DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 8-19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-26 are newly added. Claims 1-7 and 20-26 are pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “determining a plurality of query expressions of the query, wherein a query expression of the plurality of query expressions includes a set of query operations; determining a power/time profile to produce a plurality of power/time profiles for the query; obtaining power/time constraints for the parallel execution of the plurality of queries by another set of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources; generating an energy utilization-based operation scheduling function for the parallel execution of the plurality of queries based on an instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles of the plurality of queries that produces a power versus time graph for execution of the plurality of queries that complies with the power/time constraints, and execute the plurality of queries to produce a plurality of query results”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-7 and 20-26 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-7 a system or a machine, and claims 20-26 a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
Amended claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations of determining a plurality of query expressions, determining power/time profiles, obtaining power/time constraints, and generating an “energy utilization-based operation scheduling function” (e.g., optimization algorithm). These limitations can be characterized as collecting data (obtaining constraints), analyzing data (determining power/time profiles), and generating a schedule/function to produce a query results, which falls under abstract data processing concepts. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as “a plurality of computing device clusters”, “a plurality of computing devices,” “a plurality of computing nodes,” and “a plurality of processing resources”. These elements represent a generic hardware hierarchy. The claim recites generic, conventional hardware components organized in a standard nested hierarchy. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement, any improvement to processor efficiency at a technical level, or specific mechanism for reducing energy usage (e.g., hardware control, or a caching strategy). While the claim addresses power utilization (e.g., a physical constraint), it solves this via software or algorithmic scheduling (“generating an energy utilization-based operation scheduling function”) rather than a technical improvement to the hardware architecture itself. Reciting that generic processing cores execute queries according to a calculated schedule does not transform the abstract algorithm into a practical application; it merely acts as a generic environment (“apply it”) for executing the mathematical optimization. Therefore, the claim does not provide meaningful integration into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. MPEP§2106.05.
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as multi-core, multi-node, and multi-cluster architectures. These architectures are well-known, and conventional computing hardware elements. The claim further recites query execution, determining query operations, and monitoring power or execution time, which are standard database management operations. The ordered combination simply describes: 1) breaking down queries, 2) modeling their power/time profiles, 3) applying constraints to generate an optimized schedule, and 4) executing the schedule on processing cores. Applying the scheduling rule or algorithm using routine muti-core processors executing standard query tasks does not add significantly more to the judicial exception or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because mere implementation on a computer does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the power/time constraints provides a time threshold to complete parallel execution of the plurality of queries and provides one or more of: a peak power timing threshold for using during the parallel execution of the plurality of queries, a power consumption threshold to complete parallel execution of the plurality of queries, and a peak power level threshold that should not be exceeded during the parallel execution of the plurality of queries” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the power utilization of the time/power profile comprises one or more of: peak power timing to execute the corresponding query expression; power consumption for executing the corresponding query expression; and peak power levels during execution of the corresponding query expression” abstract idea under step 2A(i) and “executing the plurality of operations in accordance with the plurality of energy utilization-based operation scheduling data over a temporal period” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “generate the energy utilization-based operation scheduling function for the parallel execution of the plurality of queries based on an instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles by: generating a first schedule based on a first instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles of the plurality of queries…, determine a first power versus time graph for parallel execution of the parallel execution of the plurality of queries and determine whether the first power versus time graph exhibits a violation of the power/time constraints ” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “generate a second schedule based on a second instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles of the plurality of queries; determine a second power versus time graph for parallel execution of the parallel execution of the plurality of queries; and determine whether the second power versus time graph exhibits a violation of the power/time constraints” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the power/time
constraints comprises one or more of a threshold maximum number of operations executing concurrently; a threshold maximum amount of data written across concurrently executing operations;…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “selecting the power/time profile from a set of power/time profiles of the corresponding query” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 is rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1.
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the power/time constraints provides a time threshold to complete parallel execution of the plurality of queries and provides one or more of: a peak power timing threshold for using during the parallel execution of the plurality of queries, a power consumption threshold to complete parallel execution of the plurality of queries, and a peak power level threshold that should not be exceeded during the parallel execution of the plurality of queries…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein the power utilization of the time/power profile comprises one or more of: peak power timing to execute the corresponding query expression; power consumption for executing the corresponding query expression; and peak power levels during execution of the corresponding query expression” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 23 recites “generating a first schedule based on a first instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles of the plurality of queries…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 24 recites “…generate a second schedule based on a second instantiation of the pluralities of power/time profiles of the plurality of queries..” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein the power/time constraints comprises one or more of: a threshold maximum number of operations executing concurrently; a threshold maximum amount of data written across concurrently executing operations; a threshold maximum amount of data read across concurrently executing operations; a threshold maximum number of computing device nodes participating across concurrently executing operations; …” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 26 recites “selecting the power/time profile from a set of power/time profiles of the corresponding query” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 20-26 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondiles et al. (US 12093254 B1) discloses query execution during storage formatting updates.
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 HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights