DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 07/09/2026. Claims 21, 22, 24, 26-32, 34, and 36-40 are pending in this Action. Claims 1-20 had been previously cancelled.
Remark
In the response filed 07/09/2026, claims 21, 24, 31, 34, and 40 have been amended, claims 23, 25, 33, and 35 have been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The prior non-statutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of terminal disclaimer filed 07/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument that:
the pipeline breaker of Qiu does not correspond to the pipeline breaker presently claimed. Qiu explains in paragraph [0005] that a pipeline breaker "corresponds to a node representing an operation that materializes an intermediate result." By contrast, the present claims require that the pipeline breaker "causes the execution [of a corresponding query] to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied." Qiu makes no mention of the pipeline breaker nodes stopping query execution, let alone causing query execution to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied…
Therefore, the pipeline breaker of Qiu cannot be reasonably construed as the pipeline breaker presently claimed.
In light of these shortcomings, Qiu fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious: "updating the query plan with the first shared subplan reference being specified as either a pipeline breaker or a non-pipeline breaker based on whether the first pipeline depends on a second pipeline of the first shared subplan ... wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the pipeline breaker causes the execution to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied, and wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the non-pipeline
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given the broadest and reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification (BRI), reading language of the claims in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner is mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 requires pipeline breaker which refers to stopping execution of [the query] until one or more condition(s) is/are satisfied. Here, the claim does not define the subject matter of “one or more conditions.” Therefore, it could be any kind of condition such as performing specific calculation and sharing information between pipelines.
The Examiner holds that in accordance with BRI, Qiu discloses after determining a pipeline breaker or non-pipeline breaker, the current node is appended to current pipeline. As such, appending to a current pipeline would result in updating the query plan (See Qiu: at least paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and Fig. 6). As such, Qiu discloses the limitation of “updating the query plan with the first shared subplan reference being specified as either a pipeline breaker or a non-pipeline breaker based on whether the first pipeline depends on a second pipeline of the first shared subplan,” as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, Qui discloses “a determination is made at 628 whether the current node is a pipeline breaker” (see [0039]) and “[a] pipeline breaker is identified by a necessity to materialize an intermediate result.” (See [0040]) implying that when it is a necessity to materialize an intermediate result, a pipeline is identified. Here, Qui does not explain execution (e.g., materializing an intermediate result) is waiting or broken until a condition is satisfied. However, Qui further discloses “[i]n a further embodiment, with reference to FIG. 8, location aware dispatch of pipelines may be utilized. In some queries, there may be a need to materialize intermediate results. In other words, some calculations may need to be performed to provide desired information. Such a materialization may lead to a pipeline being referred to as broken. Data may need to be shared between pipelines before processing can continue. Generally, data sharing, referred to as data shuffling may be performed for two dependent pipelines.” (See [0052]). Thus, Qui discloses or at least suggests that in accordance with above paragraphs identifying a pipeline breaker causes materializing an intermediate result. To materialize the intermediate result, “some calculations may need to be performed to provide desired information. Such materialization may lead to a pipeline being referred to as broken. Data may need to be shared between pipelines before processing can continue. Therefore, in accordance with BRI, the above-mentioned teachings of Qui discloses breaking or stopping processing until some calculations (intermediate results) may need to be performed before processing can continue which reads on the limitation of “wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the pipeline breaker causes execution to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied,” as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, in accordance with BRI, the amended limitation of “and wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the non-pipeline breaker allows execution to continue without waiting for an intermediate result to be generated” is “a contingent limitation” is not required to be executed by the claim since the first “wherein clause” has already been satisfied. However, Qui discloses if a node is not a pipeline breaker continue the execution and moving to the next node, see paragraphs 40-43, and 52, and Fig. 6.
In conclusion, based on above explanation and reasoning, Qiu discloses or at least suggests the features of “: "updating the query plan with the first shared subplan reference being specified as either a pipeline breaker or a non-pipeline breaker based on whether the first pipeline depends on a second pipeline of the first shared subplan ... wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the pipeline breaker causes the execution to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied, and wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the non-pipeline,” as recited by at least claim 1. The prior 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 26-32, 34, and 36-40 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26-32, 34, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al., US 2018/0089270 (Qiu, hereafter).
Regarding claim 21,
Qui discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
traversing an operator topology of a query plan to identify pipelines within the query plan, wherein the query plan includes a first shared subplan reference, wherein the first shared subplan reference refers to a first shared subplan including a first pipeline, and wherein the first shared subplan is associated with a shared node in the operator topology (See paragraph [0025], “The pipeline dependent tree generator 120 traverses the query plan tree 110 and identifies multiple pipelines indicated at 125, 130 and 135, indicates as P1, P2, and P3.”. The procedure for traversing a query plan tree to generate a pipeline dependent tree (PDT), as described in paragraphs [0034]-[0039], with reference to figure 6. As further discussed in paragraphs [0043]-[0045], with reference to figure 7, said query plan is conventionally provided by a query optimizer (from a given user query) and subsequently said PDT is being generated. As pointed out in paragraph [0034], stacks are used during said traversal of the query plan tree to keep an ordered record of tree nodes and pipelines, wherein "[a]n iterative post-order traversal ensures that the query plan tree may be visited once". Shared subplan references/nodes are processed in the following way: During the (post-order) downward traversal, "[i]f at 620, it was determined that traversal was not proceeding down, a determination is made at 628 whether the current node is a pipeline breaker. If not, the current node is appended to the current pipeline [. . .]. If at 628, the current node was a pipeline breaker, a determination is made whether the current node is a join node at 640. A pipeline breaker is identified by a necessity to materialize an intermediate result. If the current node is not a join node, the current node is appended to the current pipeline, which is designated as complete at 642', cf. paragraphs [0036]-[0039]. Data sharing/shuffling between dependent pipelines is, furthermore, discussed in paragraphs [0046]-[0047], with reference to figure 8);
tracking pipeline dependencies of the query plan based on a state of the operator topology, wherein pipeline dependencies are tracked using pipeline indices (See paragraphs [0025]-[0027], identifying and tracking pipeline dependencies using PDT. Also see figure 5 or the left-hand PTO in figure 8, where all pipelines have their own unique index/number, wherein "execution should occur from the bottom up, with pipelines on the same level being performable by different processors in parallel", cf. paragraph [0036], i.e. the lowest, left-most pipeline is designated as "P1 ", the first pipeline index/ number);
updating the query plan with the first shared subplan reference being specified as either a pipeline breaker or a non-pipeline breaker based on whether the first pipeline depends on a second pipeline of the first shared subplan (See paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and Fig. 6, after determining a pipeline breaker or non-pipeline breaker, the current node is appended to current pipeline. As such, appending a current pipeline would result in updating the query plan); and
generating, based on the updated query plan, an execution plan for execution of a corresponding query at run time (See figure 7 and paragraphs [0043]-[0045], describing how the PDT is used to find an optimal execution order (as represented by an optimal directed acyclic graph (DAG) derived from said PDT) which is "utilize[d] to execute the query via the execution engine 730");
wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the pipeline breaker causes execution to stop until one or more conditions are satisfied (See paragraphs 40-43, and 52, and Fig. 6, breaking or stopping processing until some calculations (intermediate results) may need to be performed before processing can continue), and wherein the first shared subplan reference being specified as the non-pipeline breaker allows execution to continue without waiting for an intermediate result to be generated (Note this limitation is “a contingent limitation” is not required to be executed by the claim since the first “wherein clause” has already been satisfied. However, Qui discloses if a node is not a pipeline breaker continuing the execution and moving to the next node, see paragraphs 40-43, and 52, and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22,
Qui discloses wherein the query plan is structured as a directed acyclic graph (See paragraphs 15, 45, and Fig. 8).
Qui discloses
Regarding claim 24,
Qui discloses wherein a first condition of the one or more conditions comprises generation of an intermediate result being detected (See paragraphs 40-43, and 52, and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26,
Qui discloses specifying all shared subplan references as pipeline breakers during a first traversal of the operator topology (See paragraphs 6, 60, 62, 64, 70-72, and Fig. 6, traversing the query plan to identify a sequence of nodes for each pipeline and starting the new pipeline as a function encountering pipeline breaker).
Regarding claim 27,
Qui discloses during the first traversal, creating a new pipeline in the
operator topology after a second shared subplan reference (See paragraphs 25, 35, 46, 60, 62, 64, Fig. 4-6, and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 28,
Qui discloses checking, during a second traversal of the operator topology, whether the new pipeline depends on any pipeline which comes after an origination pipeline of a second shared subplan corresponding to the second shared subplan reference (See paragraphs 25, 35, 46, 60, 62, 64, Fig. 4-6, and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 29,
Qui discloses converting the second shared subplan reference to a non-pipeline breaker responsive to determining, during the second traversal of the operator topology, that the new pipeline does not depend on any pipeline having a pipeline index greater than a given pipeline index of the origination pipeline (See paragraphs 25, 35, 46, 60, 62, 64, Fig. 4-6, and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 30,
Qui discloses wherein the second pipeline has a pipeline index greater than a pipeline index of a third pipeline of the first shared subplan (See paragraphs 25, 35, 46, 60, 62, 64, Fig. 4-6, and Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 31-39,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 21-29, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 21-29, respectively.
Regarding claim 40,
the scope of the claim is substantially the same as claim 21 and is rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejection of claim 21.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
09/09/2026
Prosecution Insights