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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Arguments
Applicant Argues
On the contrary, the Office Action selectively extrapolates few claim features as mental steps. The claim clearly recites that all the features in combination result in an improved and efficient method to perform nearest-neighbor search in a distributed database system which is an improvement in the realm of distributed database query processing and execution architecture. This cannot be performed by a human mind because the human mind doesn't have the ability to manage plural storage nodes and distributed data partitions to perform coordinated query processing; the human mind can't access large-scale spatially partitioned datasets across multiple nodes with the precision of computer-implemented indexing and processing systems; thus affecting the efficiency and correctness of distributed nearest-neighbor query execution.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered and are not persuasive.
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").”
Here, the claim remains subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because, although the claim recites a particular database architecture and spatial indexing arrangement, the claimed subject matter is directed to the abstract idea of organizing, indexing, and searching information based on geographic location. The recited “plural storage nodes,” spatial subspaces, cells, real-time location data, and updated indexes merely specify how the information is stored and retrieved in a conventional computer database environment. In particular, “search[ing] plural mobile objects” to identify neighboring objects, “control[ling] storage” of object data according to spatial regions, maintaining an index reflecting changes in location, and performing a nearest-neighbor search by querying only relevant storage nodes are all steps for collecting, organizing, indexing, and searching data. At Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations therefore recite an abstract data-management/search concept.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements—processors, memory, storage nodes, cells, indexes, and local querying—do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely use generic computer/database components to perform their respective conventional functions. Even assuming the claimed distribution of spatial subspaces among storage nodes provides an improvement in search efficiency, the claim characterizes that improvement in terms of the result to be achieved (querying only relevant nodes and performing a local search), rather than reciting a specific technological mechanism that improves the underlying operation of the computer or database. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B, and the § 101 rejection remains proper.
Applicant Argues
Tao, at best, describes a logical indexing and query processing technique using a dynamically updated multi layer grid structure for moving object data. However, Tao fails to teach or suggest maintaining, in each storage node, an updated index reflecting changes in the real-time location data of the mobile objects, or performing a nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a surrounding region, as required by amended independent claim 1.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are not persuasive. Here, Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant Argues
Sirer, at best, describes assigning hyperspace regions to nodes based on system defined coordinate mapping and partitioning of multidimensional space. Sirer fails to teach or suggest a user configurable mapping that defines which spatial subspace belongs to which storage node, as required by Claim 8.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are not persuasive. Here, 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.). Sirer expressly discloses that multidimensional hyperspace is divided into hyperspace regions, with each hyperspace region being assigned to one or more data storage nodes, and that an object is stored at the data storage node whose hyperspace region encompasses the object's coordinates. Sirer further discloses that the assignment of hyperspace regions to data storage nodes is managed by a coordinator algorithm and that different assignment strategies may be employed, including uniform, random, and adaptive assignment strategies. Sirer expressly establishes a mapping between particular hyperspace regions and particular storage nodes, whereby the mapping determines the node at which objects associated with a particular region are stored. Further, Sirer expressly teaches that the assignment strategy and distribution of hyperspace regions may be selected or modified to achieve desired system characteristics, such as load balancing and search performance. Accordingly, to the extent “user-configurable” is construed broadly to encompass a mapping whose assignment/configuration is selectable or configurable by the system in accordance with desired operating parameters, Sirer teaches or at least suggests the claimed mapping. Applicant's argument improperly imports a requirement that a human user must manually identify each individual subspace and storage node, whereas the claim merely requires a “user-configurable mapping” and does not expressly require manual assignment of every individual subspace. Accordingly, Sirer teaches or renders obvious the recited mapping of spatial subspaces to storage nodes, and Applicant's argument does not overcome the rejection.
Applicant Argues
Khojastepour, at best, describes distributing tasks across processes using hash based assignment mechanisms for load balancing. Khojastepour fails to teach or suggest using both (i) a user configurable mapping that defines subspace to node assignment and (ii) consistent hashing in combination, as required by Claim 9.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are not persuasive. 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.). Khojastepour discloses more than merely distributing tasks using hash-based assignment for load balancing. Khojastepour teaches partitioning a hash-value space into portions or slots associated with particular workers and further discloses that the slots may be directly mapped or remapped to any worker, thereby providing an explicit mapping between portions of the space and particular nodes/processes. Khojastepour also expressly employs consistent hashing as the mechanism for assigning the hash-space portions to workers. Thus, the reference teaches both the mapping of defined subspaces to particular workers and consistent hashing for distributing data/tasks among the workers. The claim’s use of the term “user configurable” does not require a particular user-interface implementation where the underlying mapping is otherwise configurable or remappable; moreover, the claimed “subspaces” and “nodes” are reasonably read on Khojastepour’s disclosed hash-space slots/partitions and workers. Accordingly, Khojastepour teaches the claimed combination of a mapping defining subspace-to-node assignments and consistent hashing for load balancing.
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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 storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include the specific location or a region surrounding the specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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 the nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include a specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 the nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include a specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 the nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include a specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 the nearest neighbor search by querying only those storage nodes whose spatially distinct subspaces include a specific location, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein” 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang)
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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, Wang 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 the index being updating the index simultaneously as the grid is kept up to date.); 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 1 of PDF, Abstract, the reference describes using the k-nearest neighbor searching based on a regional coverage to location grid spaces within coordinates.).). 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 Wang to search grid space based on location coordinates 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 Wang to efficiently reduce the number of nodes visited during a query search (Wang: page 5 of PDF).
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Zhang, Cho, and Wang 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 Wang 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 Wang 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
However, Wang 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 the index being updating the index simultaneously as the grid is kept up to date.); 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein(page 1 of PDF, Abstract, the reference describes using the k-nearest neighbor searching based on a regional coverage to location grid spaces within coordinates.).). 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 Wang to search grid space based on location coordinates 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 Wang to efficiently reduce the number of nodes visited during a query search (Wang: page 5 of PDF).
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein.
However, Wang 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 the index being updating the index simultaneously as the grid is kept up to date.); 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, wherein the nearest neighbor search is executed locally at each queried storage node over cells of the spatially distinct subspaces stored therein. 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 Wang to search grid space based on location coordinates 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 Wang to efficiently reduce the number of nodes visited during a query search (Wang: page 5 of PDF).
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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang) 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 Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang) 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang), 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 Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang), 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 Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang) 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 Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang) 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, Cho, and Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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, Cho, Wang, 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 further in view of Wang et al. Non-Patent Publication (“K-nearest neighbor searching based on regional coverage”, 2011; hereinafter: Wang) 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 Wang 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, Wang, 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, Wang, 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).
Final Action
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.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights