DETAILED ACTION
This Office Actions is in response to communication (Amendment) filed on 10/20/2025.
Claims 1 – 15 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 15 are in independent form. Claims 1 – 15 were amended. This action is Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on 10/20/2025.
Claims 1 – 15 were amended. Claims 1 – 15 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 – 15 are being considered on the merits.
The Objection of claims 5 – 8 and 12 – 14 has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 10/20/2025
The 35 U.S.C § 112(f) Claim Interpretation has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 10/20/2025
The Rejection of claims 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 10/20/2025.
The Rejection of claims 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 10/20/2025. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art Bowers et al. US Pub. No. US 20160358101 A1 (hereafter Bowers) and in view of the previously cited prior art(s). Reference Bowers, in combination with previously cited prior art(s), discloses each element of the claims highlighted by applicant.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 10/20/2025 have been fully considered with the following result(s).
The examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Amendments to the Specification
Applicant’s argument filed on 10/20/2025 regarding the Amendments to the Specification has been considered, but there is no Amendments to the Specification, regarding paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0051, and [0052], was filed together with the applicant's argument on10/20/2025.
Response to Claims Objection Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 10/20/2025 regarding the Claims Objection has been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previous Claims Objection has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C § 112(f) Claim Interpretation Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 10/20/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C § 112(f) Claim Interpretation has been fully considered and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C § 112(f) Claim Interpretation has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C § 112(b) Rejection Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 10/20/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C § 112(b) Rejection has been fully considered and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C § 112(b) Rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C § 103 Rejection Remarks
Applicant's arguments in the applicant’s remarks and amendments of independent claims 1, 11 and 15, found on pages 15 – 16 and filed on 10/20/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art Bowers et al. US Pub. No. US 20160358101 A1 (hereafter Bowers) and in view of the previously cited prior art(s). Reference Bowers, in combination with previously cited prior art(s), discloses each element of the claims highlighted by applicant.
For further details, please see below claims rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title “DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, SYSTEM, AND DATA PROCESSING METHOD” is very generic, and does not clearly indicative of the invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers et al. US Pub. No. US 20160358101 A1 (hereafter Bowers), in further view of Reshadi et al. US Pat. No. US 11080065 B1 (hereafter Reshadi)
Regarding claim 1, Bowers teaches the invention substantially as claimed: A data processing apparatus comprising one or more processors provided with computer-readable instructions such that, when the computer-readable instructions are executed by the one or more processors, the data processing apparatus is configured to comprise: (e.g. FIG. 6 and [0105]: “The computing device 600 can execute at least part of the method 400 of FIG. 4. The computing device 600 includes one or more processors 610 and memory 620 coupled to an interconnect 630”) The citation discloses the computing device/data processing apparatus, comprises one or more processors 610 and memory 620.
a data receiving unit configured to receive data; (e.g. FIG. 5 and [0084]: The client device 504A is a computing device capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network channel 506.” and [0093]: “In accordance with various embodiments, the action logger 514 is capable of receiving communications from the web server 524 about user actions on and/or off the social networking system 502.”).
a set data recording unit configured to record a plurality of set data (e.g. FIG. 5 and [0086]: “The social networking system 502 includes a profile store 510, a content store 512, an action logger 514, an action log 516, an edge store 518”) The citation discloses at FIG. 5 and [0086] there are multiple components within system 502 that responsible for storing data. However, Bowersdoes not clearly disclose the set data as the “combining an event with a program”. The set data will be discussed below.
each of the plurality of set data also including identifying information regarding any others of the plurality of events associated with the corresponding one of the plurality of events, (e.g. [0019]: “The workflow execution engine can automatically handle scheduling data processing operators appropriately such that a data processing operator will not run until all of its inputs have been materialized by one or more data processing operators that produce them.” and [0073]: “In the example of the new experiment being defined from scratch, the inputs can be definitional inputs of workflow attributes (e.g., to define a new workflow) and/or experiment parameters (e.g., to define a new workflow run/experiment). The definitional inputs, for example, can include identifications of one or more of input datasets, input data sources, data processing operators, input/output schemas, input/output summary formats, or any combination thereof” and [0075]: “In the example of the new experiment defined from a blank slate, the experiment management engine can schedule the new workflow based on the definitional inputs.” and [0033]: “The workflow execution format can indicate analysis performed on the workflow by the workflow authoring tool 126. For example, as part of the compilation, the workflow authoring tool 126 can identify interdependencies amongst one or more data processing operators, flag potential inconsistencies in inputs or outputs of the data processing operators, identify one or more code packages associated with the data processing operators and interdependencies of the code packages, identify resource constraints for computing devices that will run the data processing operators, or any combination thereof.”) The citation discloses at [0019] the data processing operator will not run until all inputs, which have been materialized by one or more data processing operators, are available. At [0073] discloses the input definition would include identification for the data processing operators, and as the operator only run when all inputs are available, it would imply that the input definition contains data relates to the operator that is used to process the input. The data relates to the operator that is used to process the input would be consider as the” identifying information” that the two inputs are associated, since the two input are processed by the same operator (at [0019]). At [0033] disclose the interdependencies and code packages association between the data processing operator.
the corresponding one of the plurality of event processing programs processes the corresponding one of the plurality of events and any others of the plurality of events associated with the corresponding one of the plurality of events to generate a corresponding one of a plurality of resulting events; (e.g. [0019]: “The workflow execution engine can automatically handle scheduling data processing operators appropriately such that a data processing operator will not run until all of its inputs have been materialized by one or more data processing operators that produce them.”) and [0020]: “Data processing operators and/or workflows can expose output schemas describing the set of items they produce. In some embodiments, an input or output (I/O) schema can be associated with a serialization format. In some embodiments, each workflow with a defined output schema and corresponding serialization format can automatically upload its outputs according to the serialization format to a memoization database of operator outputs.”) The citation discloses the data processing operators expose the output after the output is produced by the data processing operators, so it would imply that the operators processed the received inputs to generate the output
and a data processing execution unit configured to execute the plurality of event processing programs, each of the plurality of event processing programs being configured to process at least two respective events from among the plurality of events and the plurality of resulting events; (e.g. [0030]: “The experiment management engine 124 can facilitate creation of new experiments. Each experiment can correspond to at least one workflow. A workflow can be defined by one or more data processing operators working together in a pipeline (e.g., represented by a directed acyclic graph) to process one or more input datasets into one or more outputs. The workflow can also define a summary format to facilitate analysis (e.g., comparative analysis, statistical analysis, evaluative analysis, or any combination thereof) of the outputs or the input datasets.”) the citation disclose the experiment management engine/data processing execution unit, that responsible for the creation of new experiments, which comprises at least one workflow, which defined by one or more data processing operators.
However, Bowers fails to teach each of the plurality of set data being obtained by combining a corresponding one of a plurality of events with a corresponding one of a plurality of event processing programs.
Reshadi teaches each of the plurality of set data being obtained by combining a corresponding one of a plurality of events with a corresponding one of a plurality of event processing programs (e.g. 62 - Col 16, lines 19 – 26: “At the fourth stage, a human developer may manually add a set of manual code 908. The set of manual code may include instructions, data types, and constants. At the fifth stage, the set of generated configuration data and code 906 is combined with the set of manual code 908 at build time to generate a combination of configuration data and code 910 that is in a compiler-readable format that a compiler can handle.”) The citation discloses concept of combining set of data/event, with code/program, to generate a combination of data and code.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the each of the plurality of set data being obtained by combining a corresponding one of a plurality of events with a corresponding one of a plurality of event processing programs, as taught in Reshadi’s invention into Bowers’s invention because this would improve the flexibility, accuracy, and processing speed, in handling multiple events, as the system would have the corresponding information about which program is used to execute the corresponding data.
Regarding claim 3, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Bowers further teach comprising: a set data management unit configured to manage the plurality of set data, by a graph database in which each of the plurality of pieces of set data is set as a node. (e.g. [0083]: “Based on stored data about users, objects and connections between users and/or objects, the social networking system 502 generates and maintains a “social graph” comprising multiple nodes interconnected by multiple edges. Each node in the social graph represents an object or user that can act on another node and/or that can be acted on by another node. An edge between two nodes in the social graph represents a particular kind of connection between the two nodes, which may result from an action that was performed by one of the nodes on the other node.”) The citation discloses the social graph/graph database, which comprises multiple nodes.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 1, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a data processing method claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 1, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers and Reshadi, in further view of Frost et al. US Pub. No. US 20200364196 A1 (hereafter Frost)
Regarding claim 2, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Bowers further teaches which is started when the first event and a second event, of the plurality of events, have been generated and which processes the first event and the second event, ..........., which is started when the second event and the first event have been generated and which processes the second event and the first event. (e.g. [0019]: “The workflow execution engine can automatically handle scheduling data processing operators appropriately such that a data processing operator will not run until all of its inputs have been materialized by one or more data processing operators that produce them.”) The citation discloses the data processing operator /first program, must wait until all data available before starting to process this data. This concept similar to the above claim limitation, as the first program must wait until first event and second event are complete before processing the first and second event.
Bowers, in view of Reshadi, fails to teach wherein the set data recording unit is configured to record a first set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining a first event, of the plurality of events, with a first program, of the plurality of event processing programs, ..........., and a second set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining the second event with the first program
However, Frost teaches wherein the set data recording unit is configured to record a first set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining a first event, of the plurality of events, with a first program, of the plurality of event processing programs, ..........., and a second set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining the second event with the first program (abstract: “Data streams are converted into sequences of events, and object representation within the streams is identified and subject to processing with respect to the event sequences”, and [0031]: “The processing conducted by the data manager (152) maintains the time order and converts each data stream that is the subject of the assessment into a corresponding sequence of events. For example, in one embodiment, file.sub.0 (162) represents a first data stream, file.sub.1 (164) represents a second data stream, and file.sub.2 (166) represents a third data stream. In one embodiment, the data streams are received across the network (105), processed by the data manager (152), with the processed data streams represented and stored in the knowledge base as files, e.g. (162)-(166).”, and claims 1, 7, and 13: “convert a first data stream into a first sequence of events and convert a second data stream into a second sequence of events, the first data stream having at least one first object and the second data stream having at least one second object;”) The citation discloses the concepts of multiple data stream/multiple events are receive and converted into sequences of events for analyzing. By combining with the teaching of Reshadi about the combining data with code/program, one with the ordinary skills in the art would be able to come up with the claim invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the set data recording unit is configured to record a first set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining a first event, of the plurality of events, with a first program, of the plurality of event processing programs, ..........., and a second set data, of the plurality of set data, obtained by combining the second event with the first program, as taught in Frost’s invention into BOWERS and Reshadi’s invention because this would allow the same program can be reused for multiple events without duplicating the code or processing logic, which helps to improves the efficiency and flexibilities, reducing memory usage, and make it easier to manage and execute tasks on different events.
Regarding claim 4, Bowers, in view of Reshadi and Frost, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, and Bowers further teach comprising: a set data management unit configured to manage the plurality of set data, by a graph database in which each of the plurality of pieces of set data is set as a node. (e.g. [0083]: “Based on stored data about users, objects and connections between users and/or objects, the social networking system 502 generates and maintains a “social graph” comprising multiple nodes interconnected by multiple edges. Each node in the social graph represents an object or user that can act on another node and/or that can be acted on by another node. An edge between two nodes in the social graph represents a particular kind of connection between the two nodes, which may result from an action that was performed by one of the nodes on the other node.”) The citation discloses the social graph/graph database, which comprises multiple nodes
Claims 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers and Reshadi, in further view of MCDAID et al. US Pub. No. US 20160050261 A1 (hereafter MCDAID)
Regarding claim 5, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit.
However, MCDAID teaches comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “CEP engine 106”)
a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “the batch processing engine 108”)
and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit, as taught in MCDAID’s invention into Bowers and Reshadi’s invention because the system would become more flexible and intelligent in how it handles different types of data, which improves system performance, faster processing, and more efficient use of resources.
Regarding claim 7, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to teach comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit.
However, MCDAID teaches comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “CEP engine 106”)
a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “the batch processing engine 108”)
and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit, as taught in MCDAID’s invention into Bowers and Reshadi’s invention because the system would become more flexible and intelligent in how it handles different types of data, which improves system performance, faster processing, and more efficient use of resources.
Regarding claim 10, Bowers, in view of Reshadi and MCDAID, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 5, and MCDAID further teaches wherein the selection unit is configured to select, according to a response performance of processing which is a target, the execution unit that processes the data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit. (e.g. FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/performance of processing.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is system claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 5, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is system claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 7, so it is also rejected under the same rational
Claims 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers, Reshadi, and Frost, in further view of MCDAID et al. US Pub. No. US 20160050261 A1 (hereafter MCDAID)
Regarding claim 6, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, and Frost, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to teach comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit.
However, MCDAID teaches comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “CEP engine 106”)
a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “the batch processing engine 108”)
and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit, as taught in MCDAID’s invention into Bowers, Reshadi, and Frost’s invention because the system would become more flexible and intelligent in how it handles different types of data, which improves system performance, faster processing, and more efficient use of resources.
Regarding claim 8, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, and Frost, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 4, but fails to teach comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit.
However, MCDAID teaches comprising: a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “CEP engine 106”)
a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “the batch processing engine 108”)
and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit (FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the a CEP (Complex Event Processing) execution unit configured to execute CEP on the data; a batch processing execution unit configured to execute batch processing on the data; and a selection unit configured to select, according to a predetermined condition, an execution unit that processes data output from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit, as taught in MCDAID’s invention into Bowers, Reshadi, and Frost’s invention because the system would become more flexible and intelligent in how it handles different types of data, which improves system performance, faster processing, and more efficient use of resources
Regarding claim 13, the claim is system claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 6, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers, Reshadi, and MCDAID, in further view of Das et al. US Pub. No. US 20170177263 A1 (hereafter Das)
Regarding claim 9, Bowers, in view of Reshadi, and MCDAID, discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 5, and MCDAID further teaches wherein the selection unit is configured to select, according to a condition which is a processing target, the execution unit that processes the data from the data processing execution unit, the CEP execution unit, and the batch processing execution unit. (e.g. FIG. 1 and [0051]: “The data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data from the sensor 104 and, using a brokered messaging model, routes it to the in-memory CEP engine 106 and/or the batch processing engine 108 as appropriate. That is, all urgent data is routed to the in-memory CEP engine 106, whereas any data useful for historical analysis (e.g., data that can be processed in batch in non-real-time) is routed to the batch processing engine 108 regardless of whether it is urgent or non-urgent data. As shown in FIG. 1, results from the in-memory CEP engine 106 may be sent to the batch processing engine 108 for analysis purposes, as well.”) The citation discloses the data classification and routing layer 104 classifies the incoming data to CEP or batch processing, based on the urgent data/condition.
Bowers, in view of Reshadi and MCDAID, fails to teach the condition as an amount of data.
However, Das teaches an amount of data ([0035]: “An additional example of processing circuitry 120 is the batch processor 231. The batch processor 231 may execute processing actions over large data sets, e.g., for processing scenarios in which real-time or near real-time speeds are not required.”) the citation discloses the batch processor execute the processing action over large data set/amount of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the amount of data, as taught in Das’s invention into Bowers, Reshadi and MCDAID’s invention because by indicating the selecting condition as the amount of data, the system can reduce delays and optimize resource usage, as the set data is sent to the appropriate component for processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20180074786 A1: The present disclosure relates to techniques for analysis of data from multiple different data sources to determine similarity amongst the datasets. Determining a similarity between datasets may be useful for downstream processing of those datasets for different uses. A graphical interface may be provided to display detailed results
US 20190377817 A1: A computing system may provide an interface for creating a data processing pipeline through which the computing system may receive configuration information for a given pipeline that is configured to receive streaming messages from a given data source, process each of the streaming messages, and then output a processed version of at least a subset of the streaming messages to a given data sink.
US 20140156683 A1: Large quantities of data can be processed and/or queried relatively quickly using a combination of continuous event processing and a Map-Reduce algorithmic tool. The continuous event processor can continuously produce real-time results by merging (a) CQL query results from events received since a currently executing Map-Reduce job was started with (b) a most recent query result produced by a most recently completed Map-Reduce job.
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.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30am - 5:30PM 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, Pierre Vital can be reached on (571) 272-4215. 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.
/TUAN M NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198