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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 11 February 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18, 19 and 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CONNOR.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 10 recite(s) the limitation "select the transfer parameter based on the topic". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, and 12-16, 18, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20240118949 A1 to Graham (“Graham”) in further view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20160050261-A1 to MCDAID et al. (“MCDAID”).
As to claim 1, Graham disclose(s) a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a message including metadata and data; (Graham; Fig. 2, 42; data and metadata; [0032])
determining a value for a parameter associated with the message; (Graham; aggregation evaluation, i.e. combined size; [0033])
determining the value exceeds a threshold associated with one or more parameters rules; (Graham; size is greater than aggregation threshold; step 44; [0033])
generating, responsive to determining the value exceed the threshold, message information base, at least in part, on the metadata; (Graham; step 54, fig. 2; extract metadata from the message, i.e. a message is generated from the metadata before step 54; [0035])
causing the message information, generated from the metadata and including additional information supplemental to the metadata to be published for a plurality of end users; (Graham; step 54, fig. 2, transmit metadata message; [0035])
receiving, from an end user of the plurality of end users, a request for the data based on the message information; (Graham; step 56, request data using the metadata; 0035])
and transmitting, through a Graham; step 58 transmitting data using protocols; [0035][0040])
Graham does not expressly disclose a “selected” protocol.
MCDAID discloses selecting a protocol. (MCDAID; switching protocol based on priority; [0072]; See fig. 11. And Step S1108; See also [0080] fig. 7, various communication protocols; CEP rules; fig. 2; [0053]; [0062]-[0063] includes switching rules)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the selecting protocol of MCDAID with the message protocol sending of Graham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with publish/subscribe. Selecting the protocol would allow a choice of other protocols to be used.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Graham-MCDAID does not expressly disclose including additional information supplemental to the metadata in the published message.
Joshi discloses including additional information supplemental to the metadata in the published message. (Joshi; messages include header information that is supplemental to metadata; [0036])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the header information of Joshi with the message sending of Graham-MCDAID. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with RDMA messaging. Sending messages using header information is a well-known data encapsulation technique.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 2, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second message including second metadata and second data; (Graham; Fig. 2, 42; data and metadata; [0032])
determining a second value for the parameter associated with the second message; (Graham; aggregation evaluation, i.e. combined size; [0033])
determining the value is below the threshold; (Graham; size is less than aggregation threshold; step 44; [0033])
and causing the second message to be published for the plurality of end users. (Graham; step 48 transmitting aggregated data and metadata; [0033]])
As to claim 4, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected protocol is a direct connection between a publisher of the message and the end user. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; RDMA ;[0052]; Fig. 7)
As to claim 5, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the direct connection is a remote direct memory access connection. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; RDMA ;[0052]; Fig. 7)
As to claim 7, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising accessing a set or rules including the one or more parameter rules associated with the parameter. (MCDAID; CEP rules; fig. 2; [0053]; [0062]-[0063];)
As to claim 8, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) a processor, comprising:
one or more circuits to:
determine a transfer parameter for message; (Graham; aggregation evaluation, i.e. combined size; [0033])
determine the transfer parameter exceeds a threshold associated with one or more parameter rules; (Graham; size is greater than aggregation threshold; step 44; [0033])
provide message information base, at least in part on metadata from the message to the publisher; (Graham; step 54, fig. 2, transmit metadata message; [0035])
and transmit, responsive to a request from an end users based on the message information published by the publisher, the message to the end user using the transmission protocol. (Graham; step 56, request data using the metadata; 0035]) (Graham; step 58 transmitting data using protocols; [0035][0040])
select, based on the transfer parameter and one or more transmission rules, a transmission protocol for the message. (MCDAID; switching protocol based on priority; [0072]; See fig. 11. And Step S1108; See also [0080] fig. 7, various communication protocols; CEP rules; fig. 2; [0053]; [0062]-[0063] includes switching rules)
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 9, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8, wherein the portion of the message includes metadata for the message. (Graham; step 54, fig. 2, transmit metadata message; [0035])
As to claim 10, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8, determine a topic associated with the message, the topic grouping the message within an application executing in a compute environment; and select the transfer parameter based on the topic, wherein the transfer parameter includes at least one of network protocols, distance between the end user and a publisher, a topic size, or total number of end users. (Graham; metadata includes the address of the designated buffer; [0040])
As to claim 12, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8, wherein the transmission protocol is a direct peer-to-peer transmission protocol. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; peer-to-peer; [0055])
As to claim 13, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 12, wherein the transmission protocol is a remote direct memory access connection. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; RDMA ;[0052]; Fig. 7)
As to claim 14, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8, wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality content;
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines;
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; (MCDAID; data center; [0052])
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets;
a system for performing operations using a large language model;
or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
As to claim 15, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) a system, comprising:
one or more processors to determine one or more message properties exceed a threshold associated with one or more property rules (Graham; aggregation evaluation, i.e. combined size; [0033]) and generate message information, based on metadata for the message, including additional information supplemental to the metadata and excluding the content of the message, for publication via a broker, (Graham; step 54, fig. 2, transmit metadata message; [0035]) wherein the message information includes at least a storage location for direct peer-to-peer transmission (Graham; step 54, fig. 2, transmit address in the memory source; [0039])between a publisher of the message and a subscriber of the message using a transfer protocol selected based on the one or more message properties and one or more transmission rules. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; switching protocol based on priority; [0072]; See fig. 11. And Step S1108; See also [0080] fig. 7, various communication protocols; CEP rules; fig. 2; [0053]; [0062]-[0063] includes switching rules)
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 16, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further to access one or more rules for evaluation of the message properties. (Graham; size is greater than aggregation threshold; step 44; [0033]) (MCDAID; CEP rules; [0049];)
As to claim 18, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the system of claim 15, wherein the transmission is via a remote direct memory access connection. (Graham; RDMA protocol; [0040]) (MCDAID; RDMA ;[0052]; Fig. 7)
As to claim 19, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the system of claim 15, wherein the message information occupies less memory space than the message. (Graham; step 56, request data using the metadata; 0035])
As to claim 20, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the system of claim 15, wherein the system comprises at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality content;
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines ;
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; (MCDAID; data center; [0052])
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets;
18 a system for performing operations using a large language model ;
or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham-MCDAID-Joshi in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-9857825-B1 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”).
As to claim 3, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
But does not further disclose wherein the parameter includes at least one of data size, latency, network protocols, distance between the end user and a publisher, a topic size, or total number of end users.
Johnson discloses wherein the parameter includes at least one of data size, latency, network protocols, distance between the end user and a publisher, a topic size, or total number of end users. (Johnson; discloses where parameters include latency and priority; col. 6, ll. 60-67)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the latency of Johnson and the parameter of Graham-MCDAID. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with publish/subscribe. Using latency as a parameter would allow for the protocol to be selected that would better suite the current network conditions.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 17, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi-Johnson disclose(s) the system of claim 15, wherein the message properties include at least one of data size, latency, network protocols, distance between the publisher and the subscriber, a topic size, or total number of end users.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 3
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham-MCDAID-Joshi in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20160381699-A1 to Rubin et al. (“Rubin”).
As to claim 6, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a topic associated with the message, the topic grouping the message within an application executing in a compute environment; (MCDAID; discloses grouping message by topic; [0060])
But does not disclose selecting the parameter based on the topic.
Rubin discloses selecting the parameter based on the topic. (Rubin; discloses where priority value includes topic; [0033])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the topic of Rubin and the priority of MCDAID. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with Publisher/Subscribe. Using the topic to select priority as taught by Rubin would allow for certain topic to have higher priority.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham-MCDAID-Joshi in further view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20100333111-A1 to Kothamasu et al. (“Kothamasu”).
As to claim 11, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the message is provided to a client library associated with an application executing in a compute environment.
Kothamasu discloses wherein the message is provided to a client library associated with an application executing in a compute environment. (Kothamasu; [0122])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the client library of Kothamasu and the publish/subscribe system of MCDAID. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with Publish/Subscribe. Using the client library of Kothamasu is a well-known manner to implement client subscribers. The advantages of using libraries are well-known and include portability, reusability, and consistency.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham-MCDAID-Joshi in further view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20150249625-A1 to Jensen et al. (“Jensen”).
As to claim 10, Graham-MCDAID-Joshi disclose(s) the processor of claim 8,
But does not expressly disclose determine a topic associated with the message, the topic grouping the message within an application executing in a compute environment; and select the transfer parameter based on the topic, wherein the transfer parameter includes at least one of network protocols, distance between the end user and a publisher, a topic size, or total number of end users. (Graham; topic exceeds condition threshold; [0074]; size of topic messages [0035])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may email and/or call the Examiner or 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445