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 .
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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and rejected in the application.
Arguments
Applicant Argues
Accordingly, similar to Enfish, independent claim 1 includes computations that are not abstract, but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that results in an improvement to computer-related technology. In particular, according to independent claim 1, the one or more processors operate within a distributed database system to: (1) organize geographical space into plural spatially distinct subspaces and cells; (2) control storage of object data such that each subspace is stored in a respective single storage node; (3) use real-time location data to index each mobile object to the appropriate cell; (4) maintain, within each node, a dynamically updated index associating mobile objects with the cells of that node's subspace; and (5) perform a nearest-neighbor search by querying only the storage nodes whose subspaces include the target location or surrounding region. These steps reflect a specific, technical improvement to distributed data management rather than an abstract mental process.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant’s argues, “Accordingly, similar to Enfish, independent claim 1 includes computations that are not abstract, but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that results in an improvement to computer-related technology.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. The Applicant’s reliance on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. is not persuasive because the present claims do not recite a specific improvement to the way computers or databases function, but instead are directed to the abstract idea of organizing, storing, and querying data based on location. The claimed steps—partitioning geographic space into subspaces and cells, assigning data to storage nodes, indexing objects using location data, maintaining updated indices, and querying selected nodes—constitute data organization and retrieval techniques that can be performed using generic computer components. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were directed to a specific self-referential table that improved database functionality, the instant claims merely use conventional distributed database structures and indexing techniques to improve the efficiency of a nearest neighbor search, which amounts to an optimization of an abstract idea rather than a technological improvement to the computer itself. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any specific data structure, indexing algorithm, or architectural modification that meaningfully limits how the functions are performed, and thus the additional elements amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities implemented on generic processors and storage nodes. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant Argues
Independent claim 1 recites "the instructions causing the one or more processors to: control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node," which is not taught or suggested, either alone or in combination, by Cho.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Cho discloses organizing a road network into segments (i.e., spatially distinct subspaces) and storing data associated with those segments for efficient query processing (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0002]–[0005]). Such segmentation inherently corresponds to distributing data associated with different subspaces, which reasonably reads on “control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes,” as claimed. Additionally, Cho discloses tracking and indexing the current and historical locations of moving objects to support range and nearest neighbor queries (see ¶ [0009]), which teaches using real-time location data to index mobile objects with respect to spatial regions (cells) within the segmented space. While Cho may not use identical terminology (e.g., “cells” or “storage nodes”), the claimed features are reasonably interpreted as generic implementations of known spatial indexing and partitioning techniques, which Cho explicitly employs to improve query efficiency. Therefore, the cited portions of Cho teach or at least render obvious the claimed limitations, and the Applicant’s argument that these features are absent is unpersuasive.
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 new limitations have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a database system and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a database system comprising:
search plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to determine neighboring objects nearest to a specific location, said each mobile object being located in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a database system”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “plural storage nodes”, “operating system”, and “a storage nodes” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a database system”, “operating system”, and “a storage nodes” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a database system, “search plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to determine neighboring objects nearest to a specific location, said each mobile object being located in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components.” encompasses mentally a person searching plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to determine neighboring objects nearest to a specific location, said each mobile object being located in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
one or more processors, a memory, and plural storage nodes,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the one or more processors to:
control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.
maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
Here, “one or more processors, a memory, and plural storage nodes,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the one or more processors to:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.”, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.”, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein the data of each spatially distinct subspace is stored completely in a single storage node.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the operating system is configured such that data of each spatially distinct subspace is replicated to plural storage nodes to form data replicas.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the operating system is configured such that write operations concerning a spatially distinct subspace are propagated to all the relevant data replicas.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the number of replicas is configurable based on use cases.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the operating system is configured to operate a breadth-first search algorithm to answer K-nearest neighbor queries” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes by consistent hashing.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes using a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which storage node.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein for load balancing, the operating system is configured to use both a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which node, and consistent hashing.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein for data not included in the mapping, consistent hashing is employed.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “in which one node in the mapping is used as a static coordinator to broadcast new joins.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the operating system applies gossip style messaging for node discovery.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the objects are service provider vehicles.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the database is stored in-memory.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “a scalable in-memory spatial data store for kNN searches comprising a database system as claimed in claim 1.” of independent claim 17 is abstract because the claim amounts to insignificant instructions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In addition, the Examiner discussed above the reason claim 1 is abstract. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 15 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 15 recites a method for storing data and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 15 recites a method of storing data representing plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to enable fast searching for neighbors nearest to a specific location in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a database system” and “a storage nodes” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a database system” and “a storage nodes” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a database system, “a method of storing data representing plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to enable fast searching for neighbors nearest to a specific location in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells.” encompasses mentally a person storing data representing plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to enable fast searching for neighbors nearest to a specific location in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites
the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising:
storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes; and
using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.
maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
Here, “the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and
using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 15 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and
using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.”, “maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and
using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and
using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node.”, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 16 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 16 recites a method for accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim recites a method of indexing the data with respect to location within cells making up each spatially distinct subspace thereby allowing a search of data to be performed using a reduced number of remote calls. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a storage nodes” and “one or more processors” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a storage nodes” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 16 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a storage nodes, “indexing the data with respect to location within cells making up each spatially distinct subspace which allows a search of data to be performed using a reduced number of remote calls” encompasses mentally a person storing indexing the data with respect to location within cells making up each spatially distinct subspace thereby allowing a search of data to be performed using a reduced number of remote calls. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 recites a method of accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising: distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes.
maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in real-time location data;
perform the nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include a specific location.
Here, “storage nodes” and “one or more processors” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “a method of accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising: distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 16 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query based on a definition cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 16 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “a method of accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising: distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes”, “maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “a method of accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising: distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “a method of accelerating a nearest-neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising: distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes”, “maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects;”, and “perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao)
Claims 1 and 17
As to claims 1 and 17, Zhang discloses a database system comprising:
one or more processors (column 9, lines 43-49, the reference describes a processors.)
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the one or more processors to (column 9, lines 36-49, the reference describes executing software using processors and memory.):
search plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to determine neighboring objects nearest to a specific location, said each mobile object being located in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells (column 7, lines 64-67 and column 8, lines1-12, the reference describes searching for moving object and learning the neighbor moving objections based on a search query.);
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes, and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node;
maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Cho discloses control storage of object data amongst the plural storage nodes, wherein data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes (paragraph[0002]-paragraph[0005], the reference describes storing the as segments and using nearest neighbor queries to retrieve the data.), and wherein the real-time location data of each mobile object is used to index that mobile object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node (paragraph[0009], the reference describes indexing current and past locations of a mobile object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to index object data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to efficiently search for the location information of a mobile object and a static object (Cho: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Zhang and Cho do not appear to explicitly disclose
maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Tao discloses maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes indexing location data of moving objects in real-time.); and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes doing a nearest neighbor search based on the acquired position information collected.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to index in real time which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to efficiently updating only an active grid to reduce maintenance cost (Tao: Abstract).
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Zhang further disclose wherein the data of each spatially distinct subspace is stored completely in a single storage node (column 8, lines 13-27, the reference describes storing data in a node).
Claim 13
As to claim 3, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Zhang further disclose wherein the objects are service provider vehicles (column 4, lines 34-43).
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Zhang further disclose A database system according to claim 1, wherein the database is stored in-memory (column 5, lines 1-5, the references in memory.).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, Zhang discloses a method of storing data representing plural mobile objects, each mobile object having attributes including real-time location data, to enable fast searching for neighbors nearest to a specific location in a geographical space made up of plural spatially distinct subspaces, each subspace being made up of plural cells; the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising (column 7, lines 64-67 and column 8, lines1-12, the reference describes searching for moving object and learning the neighbor moving objections based on a search query.):
storing object data amongst plural storage nodes in a database system, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes (column 8, lines 46-62, the reference describes storing nodes.)
Zhang does not appear to explicitly discloses using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node;
maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Cho discloses using current location data of each object to index that object with respect to cells making up each spatially distinct subspace in each storage node (paragraph[0009], the reference describes indexing current and past locations of a mobile object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to index object data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to efficiently search for the location information of a mobile object and a static object (Cho: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Zhang and Cho do not appear to explicitly disclose
maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Tao discloses maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes indexing location data of moving objects in real-time.); and
performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes doing a nearest neighbor search based on the acquired position information collected.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to index in real time which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to efficiently updating only an active grid to reduce maintenance cost (Tao: Abstract).
Claim 16
As to claim 16, Zhang discloses a method of accelerating a nearest neighbor search, the method being performed via one or more processors, the method comprising:
distributing data in plural storage nodes according to the geographical relationship between the data, such that data representative of one or more spatially distinct subspaces is stored in a respective single one of the storage nodes (column 7, lines 64-67 and column 8, lines1-12, the reference describes searching for moving object and learning the neighbor moving objections based on a search query.)
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose and indexing the data with respect to location within cells making up each spatially distinct subspace which allows a search of data to be performed using a reduced number of remote calls;
maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Cho discloses and indexing the data with respect to location within cells making up each spatially distinct subspace which allows a search of data to be performed using a reduced number of remote calls (paragraph[0009], the reference describes indexing current and past locations of a mobile object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to index object data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho to efficiently search for the location information of a mobile object and a static object (Cho: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Zhang and Cho do not appear to explicitly disclose
maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects; and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location.
However, Tao discloses maintain, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes indexing location data of moving objects in real-time.); and
perform a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes doing a nearest neighbor search based on the acquired position information collected.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to index in real time which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho and Tao to efficiently updating only an active grid to reduce maintenance cost (Tao: Abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao) and further in view of Demiryurek et al. U.S. Patent Publication (8,566,030; hereinafter: Demiryurek, in IDS dated January 18, 2024)
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operating system is configured such that data of each spatially distinct subspace is replicated to plural storage nodes to form data replicas.
However, Demiryurek discloses wherein the operating system is configured such that data of each spatially distinct subspace is replicated to plural storage nodes to form data replicas (Column 8, lines 51-55, the reference describes replication of the network.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Demiryurek to replicate data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Demiryurek to efficiently find object of interest by partitioning data objects of interest in first and second sub-network (Demiryurek: Column 6, lines 37-48).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao) and further in view of Demiryurek et al. U.S. Patent Publication (8,566,030; hereinafter: Demiryurek, in IDS dated January 18, 2024) and further in view of Goyal U.S. Patent (11,250,019; hereinafter: Goyal)
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Zhang, Cho, Tao, and Demiryurek discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operating system is configured such that write operations concerning a spatially distinct subspace are propagated to all the relevant data replicas.
However, Goyal discloses wherein the operating system is configured such that write operations concerning a spatially distinct subspace are propagated to all the relevant data replicas (column 2, lines 35-42, the reference describes writing to replica groups.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, Demiryurek, and Goyal to write data in replicas which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, Demiryurek, and Goyal to efficiently maintain consistent replication in a time-series database (Goyal: Column 2, lines 9-12).
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Zhang, Cho, Tao, and Demiryurek discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the number of replicas is configurable based on use cases.
However, Goyal discloses wherein the number of replicas is configurable based on use cases (column 13, lines 6-22, the reference describes adding replicas based on replacement of a replica (i.e., based on use cases, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, Demiryurek, and Goyal to write data in replicas which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, Demiryurek, and Goyal to efficiently maintain consistent replication in a time-series database (Goyal: Column 2, lines 9-12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao), and further in view of Krasnik U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0250476; hereinafter: Krasnik)
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operating system is configured to operate a breadth-first search algorithm to answer K-nearest neighbour queries.
However, Krasnik discloses wherein the operating system is configured to operate a breadth-first search algorithm to answer K-nearest neighbour queries (paragraph[0004], the reference discloses using breadth first searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Krasnik to use breadth first searches which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Krasnik to efficiently determine whether a portion of the tree is to be searched, and pruning the tree if it is determined that the portion should not be searched (Krasnik: Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao), and further in view of Hao et al. U.S. Patent (11,294,601; hereinafter: Hao)
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes by consistent hashing.
However, Hao discloses wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes by consistent hashing (Column 2, lines 40-60, the reference describes using consistent hashing to assign data to nodes on a hash ring to ensure load balancing and fault tolerance.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Hao to use consistent hashing which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Hao to efficiently using a distributed data redundancy storage to improve storage of data (Hao: column 1, lines 20-26).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao) and further in view of Sirer et al. U.S. Patent (9,317,536; hereinafter: Sirer)
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes using a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which storage node.
However, Sirer discloses wherein data are stored in the plural storage nodes using a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which storage node Column 2, lines 59-67, the reference describes mapping hyperspace (i.e., subspace, as claimed) node data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho,Tao, and Sirer to mapping subspaces which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Sirer to efficiently search data in a distributed key-value store environment (Sirer: column 2, lines 20-24).
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Zhang, Cho, Tao, and Sirer discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Sirer further disclose in which one node in the mapping is used as a static coordinator to broadcast new joins (column 3, lines 20-39, the reference describes using a coordinator to centralize and map data.).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao) and further in view of Khojastepour et al. U.S. Patent (10,296,394; hereinafter: Khojastepour)
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Zhang, Tao, and Cho discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein for load balancing, the operating system is configured to use both a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which node, and consistent hashing.
However, Khojastepour discloses wherein for load balancing, the operating system is configured to use both a user-configurable mapping from subspaces to storage nodes which explicitly defines which subspace belongs to which node, and consistent hashing (column 7, lines 39-52, the reference describes mapping and hashing data to different workers.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Khojastepour to hash data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Khojastepour to efficiently provide for distributing task between a plurality of processes in a computer network (Khojastepour: column 1, lines 50-54).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Zhang, Tao, Cho, and Khojastepour discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, and Khojastepour further disclose wherein for data not included in the mapping, consistent hashing is employed (column 12, lines 28-37, the reference describes using consistent hashing based on mapping.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent (10,331,753; hereinafter: Zhang) in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2016/0076901; hereinafter: Cho) and TAO et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Road network moving object-oriented continuous k neighbor query method and system”, 2020; hereinafter: Tao), and further in view of Marlatt U.S. Patent (10,810,863; hereinafter: Marlatt)
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Tao discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operating system applies gossip style messaging for node discovery.
However, Marlatt discloses in which one node in the mapping is used as a static coordinator to broadcast new joins (column 13, lines 10-25, the reference describes using a gossip protocol.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Marlatt to use a gossip protocol which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Cho, Tao, and Marlatt to efficiently provide a sit with a set of users that have credentials to access devices across that site (Marlatt: column 1, lines 55-63).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 March 21, 2025
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024