DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the limitation “the unique identity associated with second request” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets the limitation as “the first unique identity from the second request” recited in the preceding extracting step. Claims 4, 6; 11, 13; and 18-19 are also rejected as being dependent on Claims 3, 10, and 17, respectively.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation “the unique identity” in line 1. It is unclear which unique identity is being referred to:
Claim 3, 10, 17: “a first unique identity from the second request”
Claim 3, 10, 17: “the unique identity associated with the second request”
Claim 3, 10, 17: “a unique identity associated with a data structure of the message queue”
Claims 1, 8, 15: “a first unique identity associated with the first request” generated and later comprised in the data structure
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the limitations "the unique identity associated with a second request" and “the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the limitation “the unique identity has timed out” in the last line. It is unclear which unique identity is being referred to:
Claims 7, 14, 20: “the unique identity associated with a second request”
Claims 7, 14, 20: “the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue”
Claims 1, 8, 15: “the unique identity associated with the first request” generated and later inserted in the data structure (as opposed to merely associated with the data structure)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa et al. (US 9112808 B2, hereinafter “Vasa”) in view of Chandra et al. (US 6058389 A, hereinafter “Chandra”).
Regarding Claim 1, Vasa discloses a computer-implemented method for reducing backend system calls (Fig. 2), the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200), if a first request from a client, comprising a backend system call, has been timed out by at least one of the client or an application server (Fig. 2, activity 2100; Col 12, lines 8-10: receives client request for data services. Col 13, lines 56-61; Col 14, lines 3-4: request divided into subrequests and processed by distinct database servers (“backend system call”), wherein responses provided by the database servers are assembled into a data set. Fig. 2, activity 2700; Col 14, lines 18-24: “if the server does not acquire and transmit the data set to the client prior to the transaction timer exceeding the transaction timeout threshold value.” Activity 2700 determines if a client request, comprising of backend database system processing calls, have been timed out by the server);
responsive to a timeout, executing actions comprising:
generating, by the one or more processors (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), a first unique identity associated with the first request (Col 14, lines 24-29: responsive to the transaction timeout, a notification can be transmitted to the client. The notification comprises an address associated with future asynchronous transmission of the data set. Hence, the address in the notification is generated for async transmission of the initial client request data set);
creating, by the one or more processors (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200), a fault message indicating a timeout of the first request (Col 14, lines 22-25: sends a notification for future async transmission responsive to timeout of the client request. Sending encompasses creating the notification before sending);
inserting, by the one or more processors (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), the unique identity into the fault message as a correlation identity of a response to the first request (Col 14, lines 27-29: notification comprises an address associated with a future async transmission of the data set. Address is a unique identifier to associate the data set in future async transmission (also see Col 5, lines 39-44: “address means one or more identifiers… assignable to a specific data element));
sending, by the one or more processors (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), the fault message to the client as a first response to the first request (Col 14, lines 24-25: notification transmitted to the client. Notification is a first response sent to the client when the transaction timer times out since receiving the initial client request (see Col 12, lines 8-9: receive client request; Col 14, lines 5-12: sync transmission if transaction timer does not timeout));
Vasa does not disclose:
creating, by the one or more processors, a data structure comprising the unique identity, a timeout value, and a message buffer; and
inserting, by the one or more processors, the data structure into a message queue
However, Chandra teaches:
creating, by the one or more processors, a data structure comprising the unique identity, a timeout value, and a message buffer (Col 6, lines 59-60: transactions can create messages using an ENQUEUE operation. Col 7, lines 4-46: message contains MSG_ID and CORR_ID (“unique identity”), EXPIRATION (message expiration time -- “timeout value”), and USER_DATA (user data for use by an application or process – “message buffer”)); and
inserting, by the one or more processors, the data structure into a message queue (Col 6, lines 59-60: transactions can create messages using an ENQUEUE operation. Col 7, lines 4-46; Col 11, lines 20-28: enqueues a message to reply queue specified by REPLY_QUEUE argument)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa and Chandra by implementing the message creation and message queues taught by Chandra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow messages to be queried, read, and reported on regardless of message state or schedule for execution as well as provide persistent queueing (Chandra: Col 2, lines 48-67).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 8, and Claim 8 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra.
Vasa further discloses a computer system for reducing backend system calls (Fig. 3), the computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors and memory for executing program instructions (Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions. Col 16, lines 3-20: processor executable instructions stored on memory 3300);
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (Col 16, lines 3-20: memory 3300); and
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (Col 16, lines 17-20).
Regarding Claim 15, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra.
Vasa further discloses a computer program product for reducing backend system calls (Fig. 3), the computer program product comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (Col 16, lines 3-20: memory 3300 storing instructions).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa et in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson (NPL: “Simple Two-way Messaging using the Amazon SQS Temporary Queue Client”).
Regarding Claim 2, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors (Vasa: Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), a first response to the backend system call associated with the first request (Vasa: Col 14, lines 50-51: data set can be placed in async queue for subsequent transmission to the client. Col 12, lines 8-9; Col 13, lines 56-60; Col 14, lines 4-5: data set corresponds to received client request); and
Vasa in view of Chandra does not teach:
inserting, by the one or more processors, the first response into the message buffer of the data structure associated with the first request.
However, Richardson teaches:
inserting, by the one or more processors (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor is executes the source code below), the first response into the message buffer of the data structure associated with the first request (Richardson: Page 8: lines 71-72: sqsResponder.sendResponseMessage(MessageContent.fromMessage(message), new MessgeContent(response)) inserts response into message buffer from MessgeContent constructor into a message data structure, wherein the data structure is inserted into queue srs and the data structure is a response to the client login request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, and Richardson by implementing the API call taught by Richardson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to embed and return response data to the client for viewing (Richardson: Page 8, lines 61-74).
Regarding Claim 9, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the system of Claim 8 above. The method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 9, and Claim 9 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson.
Regarding Claim 16, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the product of Claim 15 above. The method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa et in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow (NPL: “Lookup by an arbitrary identifier in MSMQ?”).
Regarding Claim 3, Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as referenced above, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors (Vasa: Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), a second request from the client (Vasa: Col 14, lines 57-62: a response can be received from the client to the notification, wherein the response comprises an identification of the dataset (address) to obtain the data set from the ETL server. Therefore, the notification response is a data set retrieval request from the client);
extracting, by the one or more processors (Vasa: Col 15, lines 58-59: processor 4200 executes machine instructions), a first unique identity from the second request (Vasa: Col 14, lines 57-62: “at the ETL server, a response can be received from the client… [wherein the response comprises] the address adapted to obtain the data set from the ETL server. The data set can be transmitted from the ETL server to the client.” ETL server extracts address provided in client response (“second request”) to obtain and transmit the data set to the client);
Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson does not teach:
determining, by the one or more processors, if the unique identity associated with the second request matches a unique identity associated with a data structure of the message queue;
responsive to the unique identity associated with the second request matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, a message buffer associated with the data structure of the message queue to the client.
However, StackOverflow teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, if the unique identity associated with the second request matches a unique identity associated with a data structure of the message queue (Page 2: matching determined by queue.ReceiveByCorrelationId(messageId, TimeSpan.Fromseconds(30)). From known documentation, ReceiveByCorrelationId() searches for a queue message containing messageId. If there is a matching queue message, the message object is returned);
responsive to the unique identity associated with the second request matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, a message buffer associated with the data structure of the message queue to the client (Page 2: queue.ReceiveByCorrelationId(messageId, TimeSpan.Fromseconds(30)).body. From known documentation, if messageId is found in queue, the matching Message object is returned. body() further extracts the message content (“message buffer”) of the Message object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, Richardson, and StackOverflow by implementing the API call taught by StackOverflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to retrieve a specific message once inserted into a queue (StackOverflow: Page 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, as referenced above, wherein the unique identity is a “responseRefID” (Chandra: Col 17, lines 32-35: dequeue operation contains queue name. Col 11, lines 20-27, Col 7, line 43: queue name may be a reply queue. Col 18, lines 42-45: Correlation Identifier and Message Identifier dequeues matching message from the named queue. Hence, correlation identifier and message identifier are referential IDs for a response/reply)
Regarding Claim 10, Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson teaches the system of Claim 9 above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 10, and Claim 10 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow.
Regarding Claim 11, Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the system of Claim 10 above. The method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 11, and Claim 11 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow.
Regarding Claim 17, Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson teaches the product of Claim 6 above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Agarwal et al. (US 20160248836 A1, hereinafter “Agarwal”).
Regarding Claim 5, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as referenced above.
Vasa in view of Chandra does not teach:
wherein the client is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client.
However, Agarwal teaches:
wherein the client is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client (Col 4, lines 22-30: client sends a request using HTTP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, and Agarwal by performing a simple substitution of one known element (Vasa: Col 12, lines 8-12: generic web-based client request protocol) for another (Agarwal: Col 4, lines 22-30: HTTP client request) to obtain predictable results (client sends a request to a server).
Regarding Claim 12, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the system of Claim 8 above. The method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Agarwal.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow, in further view of Lomet et al. (US 20060080670 A1, hereinafter “Lomet”).
Regarding Claim 6, Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of Ricahrdson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3.
Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow does not teach:
further comprising:
responsive to the unique identity associated with the second request not matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, the second request to a backend system when the second request further comprises a body.
However, Lomet teaches:
further comprising:
responsive to the unique identity associated with the second request not matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, the second request to a backend system when the second request further comprises a body ([0081]: “When an application makes a request, the web service enqueues the request on its message queue… the application must provide a request ID [to] uniquely identify the work item on the queue. The message queue permits only a single instance of a request and/or reply with a given request ID. The request is executed by being dequeued form the message queue, and the order is entered into the order database.” [0082]: “The application resubmits its request if a reply does not arrive in the expected time. The web service checks the message queue for the presence of the request. If not found, the request is enqueued.” I.e., responsive to the request ID of the resubmission not matching the request ID of the work item in the message queue (not found), the resubmitted request ID is inserted into the message queue, where the resubmitted request is sent to the order database (“backend system”). [0102]: resubmitted request contains a work item (“body”) to be entered into a work item database 510).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, Richardson, StackOverflow, and Lomet by implementing the request resubmission taught by Lomet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that an interaction can be re-requested should a failure occur during a web service execution (Lomet: [0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the system of Claim 10 above. The method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in view of StackOverflow, in further view of Lomet.
Regarding Claim 19, Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the product of Claim 17 above. The method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in view of StackOverflow, in further view of Lomet.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of StackOverflow.
Regarding Claim 7, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Vasa in view of Chandra does not teach:
further comprising:
responsive to the unique identity associated with a second request not matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, a fault message to the client, stating the unique identity has timed out.
However, StackOverflow teaches:
responsive to the unique identity associated with a second request not matching the unique identity associated with the data structure of the message queue, sending, by the one or more processors, a fault message to the client, stating the unique identity has timed out (Page 2: queue.ReceiveByCorrelationId(messageId, TimeSpan.Fromseconds(30)). From known documentation, MessageQueue’s ReceiveByCorrelationId(string correlationId, Timespan timeout) API throws a MessageQueueException when the message with the specified correlationId does not exist in the queue (given correlationId does not match any correlationId in the queue) and did not arrive before the time-out expired).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, and StackOverflow by implementing the API call taught by StackOverflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a deadlock if the message identifier is not in the queue (StackOverflow: Page 2: use of TimeSpan.FromSeconds()).
Regarding Claim 14, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the system of Claim 8 above. The method of Claim 7 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of StackOverflow.
Regarding Claim 20, Vasa in view of Chandra teaches the product of Claim 15 above. The method of Claim 7 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Vasa in view of Chandra, in further view of StackOverflow.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in view of StackOverflow, in further view of Agarwal.
Regarding Claim 18, Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow teaches the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the unique identity is a “responseRefID” (Chandra: Col 17, lines 32-35: dequeue operation contains queue name. Col 11, lines 20-27, Col 7, line 43: queue name may be a reply queue. Col 18, lines 42-45: Correlation Identifier and Message Identifier dequeues matching message from the named queue. Hence, correlation identifier and message identifier are referential IDs for a response/reply)
Vasa in view of Chandra, in view of Richardson, in further view of StackOverflow does not teach:
the client is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client.
However, Agarwal teaches:
the client is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client (Col 4, lines 22-30: client sends a request using HTTP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Vasa, Chandra, Richardson, StackOverflow, and Agarwal by performing a simple substitution of one known element (Vasa: Col 12, lines 8-12: generic web-based client request protocol) for another (Agarwal: Col 4, lines 22-30: HTTP client request) to obtain predictable results (client sends a request to a server).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BHOTIKA et al. (US 20200160050 A1) – stores analyzed chunks in completed queue. Jobs table contain status of chunks, where chunks are then retrieved from the queue and sent to the client.
Drepper (US 20220197718 A1) – dequeue results from results queue/mailbox
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114