Detail Action
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 04/06/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/26 has been entered.
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.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,639,108 B2. 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+5+7 US patent 12,639,108 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, wherein the filter chain comprises at least one of: a case exists filter that assesses whether the consumer node has access to the work item…a capacity filter…; 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 wherein selectively claiming comprises determining, by said consumer node for each such work item, that said consumer node has access to the work item.
Claim 5. The …wherein each consumer node is configured to determine that the consumer node lacks access to a work item…
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 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.
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), and further in view of Huchachar et al. (US 2020/0348968 A1).
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 based on strategy [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, wherein selectively claiming comprises determining, by said consumer node for each such work item, that said consumer node has access to the work 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].
However, WAITE-MA does not teach wherein selectively claiming comprises determining, by said consumer node for each such work item, that said consumer node has access to the work item.
Huchachar, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein selectively claiming comprises determining, by said consumer node for each such work item, that said consumer node has access to the work item [fig. 6: worker nodes connected to the job queue, [0111], [0114]: each worker node may access the database job queue on a mutually exclusive basis in order to ensure proper synchronicity of operations. For example, each worker node may use MUTEX when accessing the database job queue to either claim a job for processing, [0116], [0122]: access the database job queue, [0151]: retrieving the one or more jobs from the database job queue may entail the scheduler thread gaining exclusive access to the job queue, identifying job records, updating, and relinquishing exclusive access to the database job queue. Gaining exclusive access may entail using a MUTEX or other mechanism for making access exclusive].
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-MA in view of Huchachar in order to determine by the consumer or worker node that the consumer or worker node have access to the work item.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure proper synchronicity of operations on the common database job queue [Huchachar: [0114], [0151]].
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]. WAITE further teaches wherein each consumer node of the plurality of consumer nodes is configured to claim a work item only if said consumer node is not stressed [[0028]: The worker node may select one or more tasks from the work collection based on a strategy, e.g. based on current memory state of the worker node].
However, WAITE does not teach wherein said consumer node is stressed when: (a) processes executing on said consumer node are utilizing at least 70% of the node’s system memory; and/or (b) processes executing on the node are utilizing at least 70% of the node’s central processing unit processing capacity.
Huchachar teaches wherein said consumer node is stressed when: (a) processes executing on said consumer node are utilizing at least of the node’s system memory [[122], [0125]: If the occupancy of the in-memory queue drops below a threshold value, this indicates there is excess processing capacity, wherein worker node is underutilized. In this case, the worker node wakes up and claims one or more work items from the database queue. Opposite of this is if occupancy of the in-memory queue is above the threshold, this indicates the worker is overutilized]; and/or (b) processes executing on the node are utilizing at least 70% of the node’s central processing unit processing capacity.
However, Huchachar does not teach threshold to be 70%.
But the threshold that defines whether a node is overloaded or not are set by an administrator of the network based on system priorities and/or configuration policies and is an optional choice.
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-MA in view of Huchachar in order to define when the consumer node is stressed, wherein the consumer node is said to be stressed when processes executing on said consumer node are utilizing at least 70% of the node’s system memory or processing capacity, i.e. node is overloaded when the memory utilization is 70% or above.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because this would have helped ensure that processing capacity of the worker node is used efficiently and not underutilized or overutilized (Huchachar: [0125]].
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.
GRAY et al., 2019/0179673: Proactive load balancing using retroactively work refusal (Teaches threshold-based load detection and returning work item back to queue or refusing work).
CHEN et al., US 2016/0139655 A1: Teaches load threshold, e.g. 50%, 80%, 100%, etc.
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
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
Prosecution Insights