DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, and 10 recites “determining, by the receiving node, that there is an insufficient number of available worker nodes to process the data” is not disclosed in applicant’s specification. The support applicant points to ¶[0044] discloses spinning additional nodes but does not state there is insufficient number of nodes. Applicant must point out where this is supported or remove the subject matter. Claims 2-9, 11-18 are rejected based on dependency to independent claims.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1 this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites a method; thus, the claim is directed to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “determining a number of worker nodes,” “determining that there is an insufficient number of worker nodes to process the data,” “breaking the data into plurality of chunks,” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “at a computer program in a distributed data processing system,” “virtual machine,” “a plurality of nodes,” “worker nodes,” “receiving node,” and “gathering node,” “subscriber,” and are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims include additional elements “receiving a subscription request,” “receiving information about data,” “gathering the processed data.” The additional elements are not a practical application because they are essentially regarding data gathering and applying method for execution. Under step 2B, the courts have identified data gathering as well understood routine and conventional. See MEPE 2106.05d.
The claims include additional elements ”spinning up additional worker nodes,” “distributing the data chucks,” “processing the data chucks,” “distributing the data stream,” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at a computer program in a distributed data processing system,” “virtual machine,” “a plurality of nodes,” “worker nodes,” “receiving node,” and “gathering node,” “subscriber,” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “receiving a subscription request,” “receiving information about data,” “gathering the processed data.” The claim includes additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity “receiving a first request to instantiate a service on a node of a plurality of nodes” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are essentially regarding data gathering and applying method for execution. Under step 2B, the courts have identified data gathering as well understood routine and conventional. See MEPE 2106.05d.
The claims include additional elements ”spinning up additional worker nodes,” “distributing the data chucks,” “processing the data chucks,” “distributing the data stream,” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements is not an inventive concept, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the subscription request comprises an identification of a type of the processed data, an identification of a data format for receiving the processed data, and/or an identification of a data channel to receive the processed data” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the type of data comprises transaction-related data or account-related data” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the data format comprises a flat file or a message” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the data channel comprises a representational state transfer ("REST")/hyper-text transfer protocol ("HTTP") channel” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the receiving node and the gathering node are worker nodes” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the information about the data comprises a size of the data and/or a type of the data” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein at least one of the worker nodes processes more than one data chunk” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 9, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the receiving node adds an additional worker node after distributing the data chunks, and distributes at least one of the data chunks to the additional worker node” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements –at least one data source, and a subscriber--. The data source and subscriber are
recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 11-18, are dependent claims rejected for the same reasons as claim 2-9 above.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-
statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent
eligible subject matter because they are not processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of
matter, but rather software per se.
Claims 10-18 disclose “a system comprising a distributing data processing system comprising a plurality of node; at least one data source; and a subscriber.” However, the claimed subject matter appears to be software elements. ¶ [0028] and ¶ [0030] describes worker nodes as java instances, and does not further describe data source and subscriber, but according to the specification describes these can be implemented as software see ¶[0052]. Therefore, the claims are not eligible patent subject matter due to the broadest reasonable interpretation being software per se.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0384659) in view of Pal et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0364223) and Mozealous et al. (U.S. Patent 10,498,625).
Regarding claim 1, Johannsen teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a computer program in a distributed data processing system, a subscription request from a subscriber to receive processed data from the distributed data processing system comprising a plurality of nodes (see ¶[0047] “According to some example embodiments, the first master node 170A may become a subscriber to the trace stream published by the first worker node 180A, the second worker node 180B, and the third worker node 180C in response to the client 140 requesting to receive trace messages from the first worker node 180A, the second worker node 180B, and the third worker node 180C”),
receiving, by a receiving node of the plurality of nodes, information about data to be processed from one or more data source (see ¶[0051] “For instance, the client 140 may query the first master node 170A in order to retrieve the trace messages stored at the first master node 170A, for example, in the trace log. Alternatively and/or additionally, the first master node 170A may send, to the client 140, the trace messages output by the first worker node 180A, the second worker node 180B, and/or the third worker node 180C. These trace messages may be displayed at the client 140, for example, by the user interface”), wherein the receiving node is the first of the plurality of nodes to respond to the subscription request (see ¶[0004] “The first master node may subscribe to the trace stream published by the first worker node but not a second trace stream published by the second worker node. The subscription may be based at least on the client requesting to receive trace messages output by first worker node but not trace messages output by the second worker node.”);
determining, by the receiving node, a number of worker nodes needed to process the data based on the information about the data (see ¶[0044] “For example, the trace messages output by one or more of the m quantity of worker nodes during the execution of the data processing pipeline corresponding to the graph 350 may be held in a trace log at one of the n quantity of master nodes.”);
distributing, by the receiving node, the data chunks to the worker nodes (see ¶ [0004] “The first worker node may execute a first portion of the data processing pipeline and a second worker node may execute a second portion of the data processing pipeline. The first master node may coordinate the execution of the data processing pipeline by the first worker node and the second worker node.”);
processing, by the worker nodes, the data chunks (see ¶ [0022] “The progress and/or performance of executing the data processing pipeline may be monitored via the trace messages, which may provide information regarding events that occur during the execution of various data processing operations in the data processing pipeline”);
gathering, by a gathering node of the plurality of nodes, the processed data from the worker nodes (see ¶ [0056] “At 402, the first master node 170A may receive, from the client 140, a request to receive one or more trace messages output by a worker node executing at least a portion of a data processing pipeline that includes a sequence data processing operations performed on data stored in a database.”); and
distributing, by the gathering node, the data stream(see ¶ [0022] “In some example embodiments, during the execution of a data processing pipeline by a distributed computing system, one or more worker nodes may each publish a trace stream that includes one or more trace messages. The progress and/or performance of executing the data processing pipeline may be monitored via the trace messages, which may provide information regarding events that occur during the execution of various data processing operations in the data processing pipeline”, see ¶ [0047] “According to some example embodiments, the first master node 170A may become a subscriber to the trace stream published by the first worker node 180A, the second worker node 180B, and the third worker node 180C in response to the client 140 requesting to receive trace messages from the first worker node 180A, the second worker node 180B, and the third worker node 180C.”).
Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches the processed data comprising the gathered processed data chunks (see ¶ [0118] “Other examples of data generated in a big data ecosystem include application program data, system logs, network packet data, error logs, stack traces, and performance data.” and see ¶ [0815] “At the processing phase 3606, the worker nodes 3306 may parse the portions of buckets located during the intake phase 3604 in order to identify information relative to a search. For example, the worker node 3306 may parse the portions of buckets (e.g., individual files or records) to identify specific lines or segments that contain values specified within the search, such as one or more error types desired to be located during the search. Where the search is conducted according to map-reduce techniques, the processing phase 3606 can correspond to implementing a map function. Where the search requires that results be time-ordered, the processing phase 3606 may further include sorting results at each partition into a time-ordering.” See ¶ [0919] “As further described herein, the partial results from a particular data intake and query system can be distributed to various worker nodes 3306 in a variety of ways. In certain embodiments, multiple worker nodes 3306 can receive partial results from a particular external data system 12 and/or one worker node 3306 can concurrently receive partial results from multiple external data systems 12. As mentioned, data chunks corresponding to the partial results from each external data system 12 can include a local search identifier that uniquely identifies the search to which the data chunk belongs within the external data system 12. In certain embodiments, the external data system 12 and/or the worker nodes 3306 may translate or transform query results from a format or language supported by the external data system 12 to a format or language supported by the data intake and query system 16A. The external data system 12 and/or the worker nodes 3306 may determine the supported format to convert the query results based on an entry in an external query configuration file of the external data system 12 and/or of the data intake and query system 16A.”),
an instance of a virtual machine at each of the worker nodes (see ¶[0142] “Host devices 106 may broadly include any number of computers, virtual machine instances, and/or data centers that are configured to host or execute one or more instances of host applications 114”);
and the information comprises a size of the data to be processed (see ¶[0190] “In some embodiments, a forwarder receives the raw data and may segment the data stream into “blocks”, possibly of a uniform data size, to facilitate subsequent processing steps.”);
breaking, by the receiving node, the data into a plurality of data chunks based on the number of worker nodes (see ¶ [0468] “In step 2318, the worker nodes sort the newly timestamped partial search results and create chunks (e.g., micro-batches) upon completion of collecting all of the partial search results from the data sources. In some embodiments, the chunks may be created to contain a default minimum or maximum number of partial search results (e.g., a default chunk size). As such, the worker nodes can create time-ordered partial search results obtained from data sources that did not provide time-ordered partial search results.” ¶ [1143] “In certain cases, the number of record groups of the plurality of record groups can be based on a number of compute resources allocated by the worker node 3306 to process incoming chunks of data. For example, if three processors are allocated to process incoming chunks of data, the record can be assigned to one of three record groups. However, it will be understood that fewer or more record groups can be used. For example, the number of record groups may be greater than or less than the number of compute resources allocated to process incoming chunks, etc.”),
the processed data chunks from the worker node into a data stream (see ¶[0445] “For example, the retrieved events can be sharded in chunks based on the field names passed as part of a search query process of the data intake and query system. The event chunks can then be exported from the peer indexers 206 in parallel over the network to the worker nodes 214.” See ¶[0466] “The worker node can use the time values (e.g., timestamps) associated with the events or event chunks to arrange the events and/or the event chunks in a time-order. Lastly, in step 2314, the worker nodes may stream the time-ordered partial search results in parallel as time-ordered chunks via the search service (e.g., to the DFS master or search service provider of the DFS system)”)
distributing the data stream over to a subscriber over a data channel (see ¶ [0470] “The time-ordered partial search results can be streamed in parallel from multiple worker nodes to the service provider, which can stream each search stream to the search head of the data intake and query system. As such, time-ordered search results can be produced from diverse data types of diverse data systems when the scope of a search query requires doing so.” See ¶[0165] “In some embodiments, a cloud-based data intake and query system 306 may comprise a plurality of system instances 308. In general, each system instance 308 may include one or more computing resources managed by a provider of the cloud-based system 306 made available to a particular subscriber. The computing resources comprising a system instance 308 may, for example, include one or more servers or other devices configured to implement one or more forwarders, indexers, search heads, and other components of a data intake and query system, similar to system 108. As indicated above, a subscriber may use a web browser or other application of a client device 302 to access a web portal or other interface that enables the subscriber to configure an instance 308.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Johannsen and Pal do not expressly disclose; however, Mozealous teaches determining, by the receiving node, that there is an insufficient number of available worker nodes to process the data (see col. 8, lines 28-64, “in response to the currently available worker nodes having insufficient capacity to handle a client request”);
spinning up, by the receiving node, additional worker nodes (see col. 8, lines 28-64, “if an additional worker node is unable to be instantiated or otherwise brought online, the worker registry service 104 may create and/or maintain a queue, or other tracking mechanism, of client requests, where the queue may be referenced when workload capacity of the available worker nodes becomes available or when additional virtual instances of worker nodes may be created”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen and Pal by adapting Mozealous to balance workload for complex tasks (see col. 3, lines 1-5 of Mozealous).
Regarding claim 2, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the subscription request comprises an identification of a type of the processed data, an identification of a data format for receiving the processed data, and/or an identification of a data channel to receive the processed data (see ¶[0128] “For example, a data center, servers, or network appliances may generate many different types and formats of machine data (e.g., system logs, network packet data (e.g., wire data, etc.), sensor data, application program data, error logs, stack traces, system performance data, operating system data, virtualization data, etc.) from thousands of different components, which can collectively be very time-consuming to analyze.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 3, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the type of data comprises transaction-related data or account-related data (see ¶[0895] “In certain cases, the worker node 3306 can request the external data system 12 to return any portion or all search configuration data or any portion or all search configuration data that is accessible based on the account or user credentials used to access the external data system 12.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 4, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the data format comprises a flat file or a message (see ¶[0132] messages).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 5, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the data channel comprises a representational state transfer (REST)/hyper-text transfer protocol (HTTP) channel (see ¶ [0143] “The communication between a client device 102 and a host application 114 may, for example, be based on the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or any other network protocol.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 6, Johannsen teaches wherein the receiving node and the gathering node are worker nodes (see ¶ [0021] “The data processing operations corresponding to each subgraph may be executed at one or more computing nodes serving as worker nodes while a computing node serving as the master node may coordinate the execution of one or more data processing pipelines by the worker nodes. For instance, one or more master nodes may form a pipeline engine configured to coordinate the execution of one or more data processing pipelines.”).
Regarding claim 7, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the information about the data comprises a size of the data and/or a type of the data (see ¶ [0836] “For example, during or after the conclusion of the intake phase 3604, each partition worker node 3306 implementing that phase 3604 may communicate to the query coordinator 3304 information regarding the collections of messages received during a given time-window (e.g., the number, size, or formatting of messages, etc.).”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 8, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein at least one of the worker nodes processes more than one data chunk (see ¶ [1116] “In addition, to address possible issues caused by redistributing and/or reducing data at ingest and/or waiting to redistribute/reduce until all of the data has been received and assigned to partitions, the worker node 3306 can combine similar data as the data is assigned to particular partitions at ingest. While the logical assignment of records based on content can increase the likelihood that records with similar data are assigned to the same group (and thus the same partition), it will be understood that combining similar records during ingest can independently improve the functioning of the system 16.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 9, Johannsen does not expressly disclose, however, Pal teaches wherein the receiving node adds an additional worker node after distributing the data chunks, and distributes at least one of the data chunks to the additional worker node (see ¶[0669] “As such, the query coordinator 3304 can estimate that a larger number of partitions will be used in the processing layer and allocate additional worker nodes 3306 or processors 3406 to the processing layer 3606 or use multiple processing layers 3606 to process the data. In some cases, more partitions, worker nodes 3306, and/or processors 3406 can be allocated to the search layers for queries of larger datasets.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Johannsen by adapting Pal to analyze large sets of data in order to gather insights and to quickly perform the analysis (see ¶ [0006] of Pal).
Regarding claim 10, is an independent system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Johannsen teaches distributed data processing system comprising a plurality of nodes (see Fig. 1A nodes), wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a receiving node, a plurality of worker nodes, and a gathering node, and each node comprises an instance of a virtual machine; at least one data source (see Fig. 1A Database 120); and a subscriber (see Fig. 1 Client 140).
Regarding claims 11-18, are system claims corresponding to claims 2-9 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 101 rejections applicants argues the claims recite a technical solution to a problem of processing large volumes of data and the claims recite actions that improve scalability specifically the newly added limitations of “determining, by the receiving node, that there is an insufficient number of available worker nodes to process the data; spinning up, by the receiving node, additional worker nodes.”
Examiner disagrees. The receiving node is a generic computing component, and the step of determining insufficient number of available worker nodes can be done in ones mind, the step spinning is just applying the abstract idea by adding an additional node, and is not a practical application nor an inventive concept.
Regarding 103 rejections, applicants argue that Johannsen does not shard trace data, because examiner stated previously that Pal’s data is processed because it is sharded as a way of processing data. Examiner does not find applicants argument to be convincing because Johnannsen also teaches processed data, for example, ¶ [0044] “In some example embodiments, the client 140 may control, via one of the n quantity of master nodes, the execution of a data processing pipeline at the distributed cluster 160. For example, the client 140 may start, stop, and/or configure the execution of a data processing pipeline corresponding to a graph 350 via the first master node 170A (or a different master node).” Applicant previously argued that Pal did not disclose processed data, and examiner was addressing the previous argument. Regarding the newly cited limitations, examiner has cited new prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kharod et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0275360) teaches extracting, transforming, and loading data; identifies a plurality of data processing activities based on the instructions; and determines a processing sequence for performing the plurality of data processing activities. The device further creates a plurality of processing objects corresponding to the plurality of data processing activities. Each one of the plurality of processing objects including a discrete data structure that is produced by performing a corresponding one of the plurality of data processing activities. The device performs the plurality of data processing activities in accordance with the processing sequence and by using the plurality of processing objects.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights