DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 12/04/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 1 and 6 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-10 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
Applicant respectfully traverses the § 103 rejection … For at least these reasons, neither Jones nor Bireley, nor the combination thereof, teaches or suggests the amended limitations of Claim 1, including (1) analyzing shared-state requirements among pooled workers to determine processing strategy, (2) queueing data based on transformer-service outcome optimization, and (3) storing data chunks and transformations as a directed acyclic graph. The dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections under § 103 should be withdrawn and the claims allowed.
With regard to point (a), Examiner agrees with Applicant and the 103 claim rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments. However, the claims are still rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 112(b) rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "for analyzing the input data" (part of the limitation “to determine a best course of action for analyzing the input data”) and "for analysis" (part of the limitation “which transformer service provides a best outcome for analysis”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there are two limitations directed towards “analysis”. For examination purposes the limitations, "for analyzing the input data" and "for analysis", have been construed to be directed towards the limitation “analyze the received data to determine a plurality of decomposition operations that may be performed in parallel”. Claims 2-5 which are dependent on claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "for analyzing the input data" (part of the limitation “to determine a best course of action for analyzing the input data”) and "for analysis" (part of the limitation “which transformer service provides a best outcome for analysis”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there are two limitations directed towards “analysis”. For examination purposes the limitations, "for analyzing the input data" and "for analysis", have been construed to be directed towards the limitation “(e) analyzing the received data to determine a plurality of decomposition operations that may be performed in parallel”. Claims 7-10 which are dependent on claim 6 are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the graph" (part of the limitation “wherein the transformations are represented as nodes and result messages between transformations are represented as edges of the graph”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "the graph" should read “the directed acyclic graph”. Claims 2-5 which are dependent on claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the graph" (part of the limitation “wherein the transformations are represented as nodes and result messages between transformations are represented as edges of the graph”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “(h) storing the data chunk and the transformation” should read “(h) storing the data chunk and the transformation as a directed acyclic graph”. The limitation "the graph" should read “the directed acyclic graph”. Claims 7-10 which are dependent on claim 6 are similarly rejected.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-10 do not have prior art rejections because prior arts, either alone or in combination, does not render obvious, nor anticipate the combination of claimed elements recited in the independent claims. In particular, the prior arts do not disclose the limitations “analyze the input data to determine shared state requirements between pooled workers operable to process the input data in a distributed computing environment to determine a best course of action for analyzing the input data” and “analyze the received data to determine a plurality of decomposition operations that may be performed in parallel, wherein a decomposition operation comprises dividing a portion of the received data into a data chunk and a transformation that acts on the data chunk; instantiate a plurality of child processes, wherein each child process executes one decomposition operation and wherein all child processes operate in parallel; destroy each of the plurality of child processes when its respective decomposition operation is concluded; and store the data chunk and the transformation as a directed acyclic graph, wherein the transformations are represented as nodes and result messages between transformations are represented as edges of the graph” in claim 1 and similarly in claim 6.
In analogous art Salsburg et al. Pub. No. US 2012/0060167 Al (hereafter Salsburg) discloses determining the amount of shared resources of servers in pools (i.e. pooled workers) that will execute a transaction process (i.e. input data) based on analyzing the transaction process’s data dependency and other processor/memory requirements. However, Salsburg does not disclose the two-part claimed architecture.
In analogous art Jones Pub. No. US 2010/0198832 Al discloses dividing an input data set into data chunks (i.e. decomposition operation) and storing the data chunks into a chunk store whilst also storing a respective manifest (reference/transformation) into a manifest store. The input data set can also be reconstructed by utilizing the manifest and respective data chunks. However, Jones does not disclose instantiating and destroying child processes associated with executing the decomposition operations.
In analogous art Bireley et al. Pat. No. 5,692,174 (hereafter Bireley) discloses spawning parallel tasks to decompose a query and terminating a parallel task when the parallel task finishes execution. However, the decomposition operations discussed in Jones are not the same decomposition operations disclosed in Bireley.
In analogous art Chakrabarti Pub. No. US 2008/0300851 Al discloses generating a directed acrylic graph wherein a node represents an application task (i.e. transformation) of a software application and an edge represents the transfer of data between two application tasks (i.e. result messages sent between nodes). However, Chakrabarti does not disclose the same decomposition operations discussed in Jones nor in Bireley.
However, claims 1-10 are still rejected based on the 112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20060212874 A1 is cited because it discloses breaking up large blocks of compute instructions into smaller ones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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, April Y Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights