Detail Action
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 10/02/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
The present application claims benefit to provisional application filed on February 24, 2022 [63/313,338 and 63/313,341]. However, it should be noted that although the provisional specification [no drawings] supports some subject matter at a higher level, the provisional specification does not explicitly provide details on how producer nodes receive data items with operation tags and splits the data items into tasks along with operation tags.
Applicant is advised to provide detailed support for the clamed subject matter in order to obtain the benefit of the provisional application for the whole claimed invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure statements filed on 10/14/2025 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The term producer nodes in claim 1 is interpreted as a processor node [i.e. hardware processor node] in view of specification pg. 15.
Claim 1 is a computer-implemented system comprising a set of producer nodes, i.e. hardware nodes. Therefore, claim 1 is directed towards physical processor nodes and is not rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a software per se.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Page 8 of the office action alleges that Waite teaches creating a plurality of work items, each work item comprising …” However, page 8 of the office action did not cite any portion of Waite for limitation…[Remarks, pg. 9].
In response to argument [a], Examiner would like to clarify that the limitation of “each work item comprising data item from the set of data items bound to operation tag uniquely associated with said data item” is not taught by Waite and Ma was relied upon to show this limitation, please see clarification below.
First, Ma’s “requests” cannot be an “operation tag” as recited in claim 1 because Ma’s request (or an operation specified in a request) is not part of a “work item” as recited in claim 1, and so Waite in view of Ma does not teach or suggest creating such a work item….…More specifically, Ma’s “requests” are from MA’s “requestors 102” as shown in Ma’s Fig. 1…For at least that reason, Ma’s requests are not part of a data item and so MA does not teach or suggest to create a plurality of work items, each work item comprising a data item from the set of …” [Remarks, pg. 9 5th-7th paragraphs].
In response to argument [b], examiner respectfully disagrees.
First the following description from the applicant’s own specification should be noted:
Page 15, 1st para:
“…Work item metadata may include…and operation tag (a datum indicating the type of operation to be performed on the data…).”
Page 21, 4th-6th para:
“At step 210, the method receives, at a producer node 103 from an invoker 101 (e.g. a user or a client) an item of unstructured data to be processed, along with an operation tag specifying an operation to be performed on that item…In some embodiments, the method receives (along with the tag…) an instance (or copy) of the item and in some embodiments the method receives information identifying the location of the item…”
In other words, operation tag indicates the type of operation to be performed on the data and an item to be processed can be received from a user or a client, as described by applicant’s specification above.
Ma, from the same field of endeavor [File operation task optimization], explicitly teaches a process of receiving a plurality of data items comprising a set of data items [fig. 3, fig. 4: receiving plurality of requests] and a plurality of operation tags [operation type in the requests], the plurality of operation tags comprising a set of operation tags [each of the plurality of requests includes operation type/tag], each operation tag of the set of operation tags specifying an operation selected from a set of operations, each operation tag uniquely associated with a corresponding data item from the set of data items [col. 5 L38-67, col. 7 L5-21, L44-65: receiving plurality of file operation requests, each file operation requests includes priority, deadline and operation type [tag], fig. 3 step #302, fig. 4 step #402].
As such, Ma’s requests are not equated to operation tags, but the operation type within each request is equated to operation tag.
Secondly, MA’s requests being from MA’s requestors 102 while the files are stored in data center is exactly the teachings that are described in applicant’s own specification [see spec. portion above].
As such, the argument that MA’s requests are not part of a data item and MA-Waite does not teach or suggest create a plurality of work items is not persuasive because Waite teaches receiving raw data (i.e. unstructured data) and generating work items from the raw data using the data model clearly shows creating plurality of work items from the raw data [0034] and MA teaches receiving plurality of requests from the requestors, each of the plurality of request is uniquely associated with the operation type or tag indicating the type of operation to be performed on a selected file, see fig. 3-4. The plurality of requests (work items) corresponds to data items (i.e. files) that are stored in a distributed network.
It also appears that applicant is addressing the prima facie case of obviousness which is explicitly based on the combination of references by attacking the references individually and/or separately. MPEP 2145 (IV) dearly sets forth: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Waite teaches receiving raw, unstructured data at a producer node where the producer node generates plurality of work items that are placed on work queue to be claimed by the worker nodes. The work items do not clearly or visibly show the operation type to be performed (operation tag), but MA teaches receiving plurality of requests (i.e. work items), wherein each operation tag is uniquely associated with a corresponding data item in the received request.
Note: Neither the claim nor the specification defines “uniquely associated” term. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the term may simply mean that the operation tag is linked or connected to one particular request at a time.
In MA, each request/work item is associated with only one operation type, and thus, each operation tag is uniquely associated with each received request, i.e. work item.
Furthermore, applicant argues that “because MA teaches a request to perform an operation on at least one file maintained in a distributed system, MA’s operation request can apply to more than one file and as such an operation request is not uniquely associated with such a file”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this reasoning.
If there is only one file, then the operation will only be performed with that one file. Furthermore, neither specification nor claims suggest performing unique operations on unique files in the present application. Both the specification and claims merely recites “each operation tag uniquely associated with a data item from the set of data items”. The claim does not distinguish or define what these data items are, whether they correspond or are part of SAME/SINGLE unstructured data file, etc. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, it is possible that the set of data items corresponds to different files and as acknowledged by the applicant, MA’s col. 7 lines 48-51 teaches file operation requests which includes a priority, deadline in operation type, and a request to perform an operation on at least one file. As such, the operation type or tag is uniquely associated with the corresponding data item or data file.
For the at least these reasons, the combination of Waite in view of MA teaches the claimed invention as presented below. The rejection is maintained.
Provisional Non-statutory Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant notes that the claims of US application 18/114,013 have been amended after the date of the office action. However, the amendments do not overcome this rejection because claim 1+7 of ‘013 application is similar to the claim 1 of present application. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/114,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions in both applications are similar and/or are obvious variants of each other [Inventions are directed towards task distribution by the producer nodes based on consumer filters].
For example:
Claims 1+7 of co-pending application is similar to claim 1 of present application.
Present App: Claim 1
Co-pending: Claim 1+7
Claim 1. A computer-implemented system for processing a plurality of data items, the system comprising:
a plurality of consumer nodes, each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes comprising corresponding node status data, wherein each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is specialized to perform an operation selected from a plurality of operations, and is configured to:
access a work item queue, the work item queue storing a set of work items, each work item comprising (i) a data item from the plurality of data items and (ii) work item metadata corresponding to said data item;
identify, using a filter chain, a work item from the plurality of work items that is compatible with the consumer node; and claim said work item corresponding to the consumer node.
Claim 1. The computer-implemented system for distributing data to processing nodes, the system comprising:
a set of producer nodes, each such producer node configured to:
receive a plurality of data items, the plurality of data items comprising a set of data items, and a plurality of operation tags, the plurality of operation tags comprising a set of operation tags, each operation tag of the set of operation tags specifying an operation selected from a set of operations, each operation tag uniquely associated with a corresponding data item from the set of data items;
create a plurality of work items, each work item comprising a data item from the set of data items bound to the operation tag uniquely associated with said data item;
populate the work item queue with the set of work items; and
expose the work item queue to the plurality of consumer nodes, each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes configured to selectively claim one or more work items from the work item queue.
Claim 7. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, further comprising:
a set of producer nodes, each such producer node configured to:
receive a plurality of data items, the plurality of data items comprising a set of data items, and a plurality of operation tags, the plurality of operation tags comprising a set of operation tags, each operation tag of the set of operation tags specifying an operation selected from a set of operations, each operation tag uniquely associated with a corresponding data item from the set of data items;
create the plurality of work items, each work item comprising a data item from the set of data items bound to the operation tag uniquely associated with said data item;
populate the work item queue with the set of work items; and
expose the work item queue to the plurality of consumer nodes, each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes configured to selectively claim one or more work items from the work item queue.
Claim 2 of co-pending application similar to claim 2 of present application.
Claim 6 of co-pending application similar to claim 3 of present application.
Claim 1 of co-pending application is similar to claim 4 of present application.
Claim 3 of co-pending application is similar to claim 5 of present application, etc.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAITE et al. (hereinafter WAITE, US 2023/0145846 A1) in view of MA et al. (hereinafter MA, US 11,681,547 B2).
As per claim 1, WAITE teaches A computer-implemented system for distributing data to processing nodes [See fig. 1: Producer Node, Work Collection Queue and Worker Node, fig. 3], the system comprising:
a set of producer nodes [Fig. 1: Node 102, [0012]], each such producer node configured to:
receive a plurality of data items, the plurality of data items comprising a set of data items [[0034]: receive raw data + requests and determine a plurality of tasks based on raw data 304, fig. 3],
create a plurality of work items [Fig. 2 step #202-206, [0013]: Producer generates a plurality of tasks for distribution, [0034]],
populate a work item queue with the set of work items [[0017]: Work collection queue 108 stores work items along with affinity, cost, attributes, etc., [fig. 1: Work Collection 108, [0027]: the producer node assigns the plurality of tasks into a work collection and other attributes]; and
expose the work item queue to a plurality of consumer nodes [Fig. 1 item #109, fig. 2 step #206: assign work or tasks to a work collection accessible to worker nodes], each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes configured to selectively claim one or more work items from the work item queue [fig. 1, [0018], [0027], fig. 2, [0035]: pull or claim the work item from the collection based on worker strategy].
However, WAITE does not teach the process wherein the plurality of data items comprises a set of data items, and a plurality of operation tags, the plurality of operation tags comprising a set of operation tags, each operation tag of the set of operation tags specifying an operation selected from a set of operations, each operation tag uniquely associated with a corresponding data item from the set of data items or each work item comprising a data item from the set of data items bound to the operation tag uniquely associated with said data item.
Ma, from the same field of endeavor [File operation task optimization], explicitly teaches a process of receiving a plurality of data items comprising a set of data items [fig. 3, fig. 4: receiving plurality of request] and a plurality of operation tags [operation type in the request], the plurality of operation tags comprising a set of operation tags [each of the plurality of requests includes operation type], each operation tag of the set of operation tags specifying an operation selected from a set of operations, each operation tag uniquely associated with a corresponding data item from the set of data items or each work item [request] comprising a data item from the set of data items bound to the operation tag uniquely associated with said data item; [col. 5 L38-67, col. 7 L5-21, L44-65: receiving plurality of file operation requests, each file operation requests includes priority, deadline and operation type [tag], fig. 3 step #302, fig. 4 step #402. Here each file request with the operation type on a selected file is uniquely associated with a corresponding request which indicates corresponding data item/file on which the operation is to be performed].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WAITE in view of MA in order to receive plurality of operation requests and its associated operation tag which identifies a type of operation to be performed on the requested data item.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to optimize file operation tasks in a distributed systems [MA: col. 1 L20-66; WAITE: Summary].
As per claim 2, WAITE teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein each consumer node [worker node] of the plurality of consumer nodes is specialized to perform an operation selected from the plurality of operations [[0011], [0018], [0020], [0028], [0035]: worker nodes select work items from the queue based on the worker strategy which specializes the worker node for specific type of tasks or operations].
As per claim 3, WAITE teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein: each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is specialized to perform an operation selected from the plurality of operations [[0011], [0018], [0020], [0028], [0035]: worker nodes selects work items from the queue/collection based on the worker strategy which specialized the worker node for specific type of tasks or operations]; and
each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is configured to assess work items from the work item queue to determine, for each such work item, whether said consumer node is specialized to perform the operation specified by the operation tag of the work item [[0011]: claim or pull the work item from the queue based on state of the worker and state of the items in the queue, [0019]: worker node strategy which acts as a FILTER for the worker node in selecting work items from the queue, [0035]].
As per claim 4, WAITE teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein: each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is specialized to perform an operation selected from the plurality of operations [0011, 0019, 0035]; and each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is configured to:
(a) assess work items from the work item queue to ascertain, for each such work item, that said consumer node is specialized to perform the operation specified by the operation tag of the work item, each such work item being a compatible work item [[0011]: claim or pull the work item from the queue based on state of the worker and state of the items in the queue, [0019]: worker node strategy which acts as a FILTER for the worker node in selecting work items from the queue, [0035]], and
(b) to claim the compatible work item for processing by the consumer node, to the exclusion of other consumer nodes from the plurality of consumer nodes, said compatible work item being a claimed work item [[0011, 0019, 0035]: based on worker strategy, worker can pull or claim the work items from the queue, [0027], [0030]: the worker node updates the state of each task comprising selected and initiated to perform task, completion of task, failed task, etc. When the worker pulls the work item, no other worker is able to claim the work based on the state of the worker item in the collection].
As per claim 5, WAITE teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 4, wherein: each work item comprises a status tag indicating whether such work item has been claimed by a consumer node from the plurality of consumer nodes [[0030]: state of the one or more tasks is maintained in the work collection which is a data structure. The state includes selection and initiation of performing the task, which is updated by the worker node, thus claiming the work item], and
each consumer node is configured to update the status tag of each claimed work item claimed by said consumer node [[0027], [0030]: worker nodes updates the various states of the work items in the work collection], so that the status tag of said work item indicates that said work item has been claimed by a consumer node from the plurality of consumer nodes [[0030]: state of the one or more tasks is maintained in the work collection which is a data structure. The state includes selection and initiation of performing the task, which is updated by the worker node, thus claiming the work item, [0035]: the states are updated for individual tasks as they are selected, initiated, completed, or failed].
As per claim 6, WAITE teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the producer node is further configured to include, in each work item, a status tag, said status tag editable by a consumer node to indicate that said consumer node has claimed the work item [[0017]: the work collection is a data structure store such as database, cache, distributed ledger, sets, sorted lists, hashes and the like, [0027]: the producer node assigns the plurality of tasks to a work collection, wherein the work collection stores the task along with affinity, compute cost, a state, and other attributes of the task, [0030, 0035]: the states can be updated by the worker node or the supervisor. States includes selected and initiated by worker node, completed, failed, etc.].
As per claim 7, WAITE-Ma teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data items comprises plurality of unstructured data items [WAITE: [0034]: Raw data; MA: [col. 7 L44-41: operation requests to perform operations of files maintained]].
As per claims 8-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-7.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fletcher et al., US 10,089,143 B2: Dynamic Scheduling of Tasks for collecting and processing data.
Fletcher et al., US 8,978,036 B2: Dynamic Scheduling of Tasks
Shau et al., US 9,916,188 B2: Provisioner for cluster management system
Parker, US 11,734,072: Stream-based Job Processing
ZHAO et al., US 2023/0153124 A1: Edge Network Computing system with deep reinforcement learning based task scheduling
Wood et al., US 2022/0276893 A1: Workflow-based scheduling and Batching in Multi-Tenant Distributed Systems
Spivak et al., US 11,347,544 B1: Scheduling Work Items based on declarative Constraints
Sharique, US 2020/0319941 A1: Producer-Consumer Communication using Multi-work consumers
HSIEH et al., US 2019/0188315 A1: Work queues
Bellows US 8,370,842 B2: Partitioning and routing of work in a multiprocessor system
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 6am-2pm 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 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453