DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 22 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended. Claims 21 – 22 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 22, the claim recites the apparatus of claim 11. The claim should be the apparatus of claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites
“A method, comprising:
determining, by a device, whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers, the messaging system being configured to facilitate data transfer from the data producers to the data consumers in real-time, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system;
determining, by the device, workloads of the applications;
determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application of the applications;
determining a capacity of a first message broker;
determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application; and
assigning, by the device, message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications and whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource, the message brokers including the first message broker, the assigning including assigning the first message broker to the first application based on the capacity of the first message broker satisfying the resource requirement of the workload of the first application.
Step 1: the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of determining, whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers;
determining, workloads of the applications;
determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application of the applications;
determining a capacity of a first message broker;
determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application; and
assigning, message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications and whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, the assigning including assigning the first message broker to the first application based on the capacity of the first message broker satisfying the resource requirement of the workload of the first application are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong 2:
The additional element of by the device merely recite instruction to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional element of the messaging system being configured to facilitate data transfer from the data producers to the data consumers in real-time, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource, the message brokers including the first message broker merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element in real-time merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under step 2B:
The additional element of by the device merely recite instruction to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional element of the messaging system being configured to facilitate data transfer from the data producers to the data consumers in real-time, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource, the message brokers including the first message broker merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element in real-time merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2. The method as in claim 1, wherein the messaging system comprises a distributed event streaming platform merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 3. The method as in claim 1, wherein the message brokers are configured to store and process messages produced by the data producers and consumed by the data consumers merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 4. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on correlating CPU and memory availability of individual message brokers to corresponding workloads of the applications are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
As to claim 5. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on an application type and associated characteristics of the applications are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
As to claim 6. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on an application-aware resource scheduling algorithm are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
As to claim 7. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on a simplex algorithm are mathematic equation and are abstract idea.
As to claim 8. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on a branch and bound algorithm are mathematic equation and are abstract idea.
As to claim 10. The method as in claim 1, wherein the applications are selected from a group consisting of: social media applications; financial applications; and
online games merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 11. The claim recites
A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method comprising:
determining whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system;
determining workloads of the applications; and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and priorities of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource, the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications.
Step 1: the claim is directed to a medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of determining whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers, determining workloads of the applications; and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and priorities of the applications, the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Prong 2: the additional element A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional element A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claims 12 - 13, these claims recite similar scope of claims 2 - 3. See rejection for claims 2 - 3 above.
As to claims 15 – 19, these claims recite similar scope of claims 5 – 19. See rejection for claims 5 – 9 above.
As to claim 20, An apparatus, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network;
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
determining whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system;
determining workloads of the applications; and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource.
Step 1: the claim is directed to a medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of determining whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers, determining workloads of the applications; and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and priorities of the applications are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Prong 2: the additional element An apparatus, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network;
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:the additional element An apparatus, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network;
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system, and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 21, The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11, wherein the assigning includes prioritizing assignment of the message brokers to a first application, from among the applications, that is associated with real-time data transfer over a second application, from among the applications, that is associated with batch data processing are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
As to claim 22. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the assigning includes prioritizing assignment of the message brokers to a first application, from among the applications, that is associated with real-time data transfer over a second application, from among the applications, that is associated with batch data processing are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Claims 11 – 19 and 21 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 11, “a processor” is not part of the claim. The claim recites determining and assigning steps. Therefore, it is directed to a computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, I.e.
As to claims 12 – 19 and 21 - 22, they depend on claim 11. They do not remedy the deficiency of claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected as the same reason of their independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 - 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Karenos et al., (US PUB 2011/0307789 hereinafter Karenos) in view of Hawker et al., (US PUB 2020/0092236).
Karenos was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 1, Karenos teaches a method, comprising:
determining, by a device, whether [applications] messages in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers (“...In one embodiment, the publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z send/receive message through the active home broker(s) 16a-16z. When the agent 22a-22z finds the active home broker 16a-16z has failed, it instructs the publisher/subscriber to switch to a different home broker...” para. 0051. Note: determining to know which one is publisher/subscriber) the messaging system being configured to facilitate data transfer from the data producers to the data consumers [in real-time], the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system (“...EDAs typically employ infrastructure called a “message broker” that receives messages (data) from publishers and delivers the messages to subscribers that have registered to receive such messages....” para. 0012);
determining, by the device, workloads of the [applications] messages (“...the agent 22a-22z measures the traffic amount by counting the amount of messages sent over an overlay link 20a-20z within a unit of time..” para. 0040);
determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application of the applications (“In one embodiment, the agent 22a-22z on one broker 16a-16z communicates with agents on other connected brokers. In another embodiment, two agents 22a-22z exchange messages to measure network conditions, including but not limited to, the liveliness of the other broker, the link delay, reliability, utilization, traffic amount, and/or the like” para. 0037);
determining a capacity of a first message broker (“...In another embodiment, the reliability manager can configure brokers 16a-16z to satisfy performance goals such as how much data to send along which link 20a-20z for a broker to achieve load balancing.” Para. 0035) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer receives optimization goals from the reliability manager, where the goals can be, but not limited to, minimum total message overhead, minimum link utilization, maximum load balancing, and/or the like. In another embodiment, the optimizer receives the required degree of resiliency, e.g. the number of home brokers 16a-16z needed for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z pair.” para. 0041);
determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application (“...The method may include the steps of FIG. 4 at Blocks 34, 36, and 44. The method may additionally include designating at least one broker for each publisher and subscriber, and another broker replaces the at least one broker when a threshold comprising reliability and/or performance is not met by the at least one broker, and the thresholds are based upon the preferences and/or the collected runtime data at Block 60...” para. 0099); and
assigning, by the device, message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications and whether the [applications] messages are data producers or data consumers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033) each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource (“In one embodiment, a configurable monitoring agent 22a-22z is deployed for each publisher 12a-12z, subscriber 14a-14z, and broker 16a-16z, for the collection of necessary performance data...” para. 0036), the message brokers including the first message broker, the assigning including assigning the first message broker to the first application based on the capacity of the first message broker satisfying the resource requirement of the workload of the first application (“In one embodiment, the reliability manager can automatically maintain the optimal broker 16a-16z selection against dynamic network conditions. In another embodiment, it can re-optimize the selection and re-configure the system periodically, or upon major network condition changes. In another embodiment, the reliability manager can configure brokers 16a-16z to satisfy performance goals such as how much data to send along which link 20a-20z for a broker to achieve load balancing.” Para. 0035. Note: the network is resource) and (“..The method may additionally include designating at least one broker for each publisher and subscriber, and another broker replaces the at least one broker when a threshold comprising reliability and/or performance is not met by the at least one broker, and the thresholds are based upon the preferences and/or the collected runtime data at Block 60...” para. 0099).
Karenos does not but Hawker teaches applications (“..messages are sent point-to-point from one application to another application...” para. 0028) and (“...In this illustrative example, messaging system 124 operates using a publish and subscribe messaging pattern. For example, producer 126 and producer 128 are software applications running on server computer 106 which can publish messages for distribution to client devices 110 without directly sending the messages to client devices 110...” para. 0039) and in real-time (“As depicted, messaging system 202 runs on computer system 212 and is a software platform that can handle real-time data feeds. Messaging system 202 can be used to process streaming data. In one illustrative example, messaging system 202 can be a message broker such as Apache Kafka, Celery, Oracle Message Broker, or some other suitable platform” para. 0054).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos by applying the teachings of Hawker would provide real-time environment for the messaging system running on the computing system (para. 0054). Karenos would apply the real-time technique to implement the message system for the broker collect and process streaming data in real-time (para. 0054).
As to claim 2, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos does not but Hawker teaches wherein the messaging system comprises a distributed event streaming platform (“As depicted, messaging system 202 runs on computer system 212 and is a software platform that can handle real-time data feeds. Messaging system 202 can be used to process streaming data...” para. 0054).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos teaches wherein the message brokers are configured to store and process messages produced by the data producers and consumed by the data consumers (“...broker 16a-16z to receive and send messages...” para. 0034).
As to claim 5, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers is based on an [application] message type and associated characteristics of the [applications] message (“...In another embodiment, the optimizer configures each publisher 12a-12z/subscriber 14a-14z and broker 16a-16z for the optimal parameters, such as the set of home brokers, the paths for data delivery for each message type.” para. 0043).
Karenos does not but Hawker teaches applications (“..messages are sent point-to-point from one application to another application...” para. 0028) and (“...In this illustrative example, messaging system 124 operates using a publish and subscribe messaging pattern. For example, producer 126 and producer 128 are software applications running on server computer 106 which can publish messages for distribution to client devices 110 without directly sending the messages to client devices 110...” para. 0039). See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 10, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos does not but Hawker teaches wherein the applications are selected from a group consisting of: social media applications; financial applications; and online games (“...producer 126 and producer 128 can produce messages that contain logs, news articles...” para. 0040). See motivation for claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Hawker, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Qin, et al., (US PUB 2018/0091588 hereinafter Qin).
Qin reference was cited by applicant on 07/07/2023.
As to claim 4, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos and Hawker do not but Qin teaches is based on correlating CPU and memory availability of individual message brokers to corresponding workloads of the applications (“..Upon detection of an imbalance in the nodes' workloads by a monitor (e.g., as indicated by uneven resource consumption), an analyzer considers various possible remedies (e.g., reassigning/demoting/promoting a replica), estimates their likely impacts on the workload, and determines whether they satisfy hard and/or soft goals of the system...” abstract) and (“....Central monitor 126 monitors brokers' utilization of resources such as CPU, storage (e.g., disk, solid state device), network, and/or memory, generates a model to represent their current workloads...” para. 0041).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos and Hawker by applying the teachings of Qin because Qin would monitor CPU and memory utilizations make sure resources are available to provide efficient system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin in view of Hawker, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stark et al., (US PUB 2012/0059882 hereinafter Stark).
As to claim 6, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos and Hawker do not but Stark teaches is based on an application-aware resource scheduling algorithm (“..A publish/subscribe broker messaging system and method for processing a data message based on a message broker scheduling algorithm...” abstract).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos and Hawker by applying the teachings of Stark because scheduling algorithm can process messages sequentially and simultaneously so as to transmit increased volume of message while ensuring increased levels of service (abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Hawker, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Daniel et al., (US PUB 2018/0225611 hereinafter Daniel).
Daniel was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 7, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos and Hawker do not but Daniel teaches is based on a simplex algorithm (“...the simplex algorithm...” para. 0042).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos and Hawker by applying the teachings of Daniel because Daniel’s simplex algorithm would calculate optimal resource consumption for the providers and consumers with cost (para. 0044 and 0046).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Hawker, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Breitgand et al., (US PUB 2020/0042352 hereinafter Breitgand).
Breitgand was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 8, Karenos modified by Hawker teaches The method as in claim 1,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos and Hawker do not but Breitgand teaches is based on a branch and bound algorithm (“...branch-and-bound algorithm...” para. 0056).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos and Hawker by applying the teachings of Breitgand because Breitgand would provide branch-and-bound algorithm to calculate optimal solution for load balancing (para. 0056). While Karenos teaches algorithms to produce optimal measurement (para. 0040), Karenos would apply branch-and-bound algorithm to calculate optimal solution for load balancing.
Claims 11, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Karenos et al., (US PUB 2011/0307789 hereinafter Karenos) in view of Kakinada et al., (US PUB 20210267014 hereinafter 2021/0267014), and further in view of Qin et al., (US PUB 2018/0091588 hereinafter Qin).
As to claim 11, Karenos teaches A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that (“...a computer readable program codes coupled to tangible media...” para. 0014), when executed by a processor on a computer (“..These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer...” para. 0107), cause the computer to perform a method comprising:
determining whether [applications] in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers (“...In one embodiment, the publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z send/receive message through the active home broker(s) 16a-16z. When the agent 22a-22z finds the active home broker 16a-16z has failed, it instructs the publisher/subscriber to switch to a different home broker...” para. 0051. Note: determining to know which one is publisher/subscriber), the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system (“...EDAs typically employ infrastructure called a “message broker” that receives messages (data) from publishers and delivers the messages to subscribers that have registered to receive such messages....” para. 0012);
determining workloads of the applications (“...the agent 22a-22z measures the traffic amount by counting the amount of messages sent over an overlay link 20a-20z within a unit of time..” para. 0040); and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the [applications] messages are data producers or data consumers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033),
[and priorities of the applications], each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource (“In one embodiment, a configurable monitoring agent 22a-22z is deployed for each publisher 12a-12z, subscriber 14a-14z, and broker 16a-16z, for the collection of necessary performance data...” para. 0036), [the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications].
Karenos does not but Kakinada teaches applications (“...list information indicating one or more gateways which are not to be used for a particular application...” para. 0006) and priorities of the applications (“A network server selects a gateway, from among a plurality of alternative candidate gateways, to use for downlink wireless communication to an end node (EN) based on additional factors in addition to RSSI. Exemplary additional factors include: SNR, gateway loading, message loading, backhaul network loading, device type, application type, application priority, operator preferences, device/application black-lists, white-lists, and red-lists, number of devices, number of transmitting devices in a given time interval, operator rules and priorities...” abstract).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos by applying the teachings of Kakinada because Kakinada would apply application priorities to select a gateway to provide needs of services for applications (abstract and para. 0064 and 0113).
Karenos modified by Kakinada do not but Qin teaches the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications (“Central monitor 126 monitors brokers' utilization of resources such as CPU, storage (e.g., disk, solid state device), network, and/or memory, generates a model to represent their current workloads, and passes that model to analyzer 124. The monitor may also, or instead, directly report some metrics (e.g., if a model cannot be generated). Thus, the monitor notifies the analyzer (and/or other components) when an anomaly is detected (e.g., resource usage is higher than a threshold, uneven usage between two or more brokers that exceeds a threshold).“ para. 0041 – 0042. Note: correlating when detecting CPU and memory usage exceeds threshold) and (“In one embodiment, the reliability manager can automatically maintain the optimal broker 16a-16z selection against dynamic network conditions. In another embodiment, it can re-optimize the selection and re-configure the system periodically, or upon major network condition changes. In another embodiment, the reliability manager can configure brokers 16a-16z to satisfy performance goals such as how much data to send along which link 20a-20z for a broker to achieve load balancing.” Para. 0035. Note: the network is resource) and (“..The method may additionally include designating at least one broker for each publisher and subscriber, and another broker replaces the at least one broker when a threshold comprising reliability and/or performance is not met by the at least one broker, and the thresholds are based upon the preferences and/or the collected runtime data at Block 60...” para. 0099).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos and Kakinada by applying the teachings of Qin because Qin would distribute stream of messages within message broker cluster to balance workload (abstract).
As to claim 13, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11, Karenos teaches wherein the message brokers are configured to store and process messages produced by the data producers and consumed by the data consumers (“..broker 16a-16z to receive and send messages...” para. 0034).
As to claim 15, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11, Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers is based on an [application] message type and associated characteristics of the [applications] message (“...In another embodiment, the optimizer configures each publisher 12a-12z/subscriber 14a-14z and broker 16a-16z for the optimal parameters, such as the set of home brokers, the paths for data delivery for each message type.” para. 0043).
Karenos and Qin do not but Kakinada teaches applications (“...list information indicating one or more gateways which are not to be used for a particular application...” para. 0006). See motivation for claim 11 above.
As to claim 19, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11, Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers is based on ensuring application resource requirements do not exceed resource capacity of the message brokers (“...The system may include at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber, and another broker replaces the at least one broker when a threshold comprising reliability and/or performance is not met by the at least one broker...” para. 0009).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Karenos in view of Kakinada and Qin, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Hawker et al., (US PUB 2020/0092236).
As to claim 12, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11, Karenos, Kakinada and Qin do not but Hawker teaches wherein the messaging system comprises a distributed event streaming platform (“As depicted, messaging system 202 runs on computer system 212 and is a software platform that can handle real-time data feeds. Messaging system 202 can be used to process streaming data...” para. 0054).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos, Kakinada and Qin by applying the teachings of Hawker because Hawker would provide real-time environment for the messaging system that can stream data (para. 0054). Karenos would apply the real-time technique to implement the message system for the broker to collect and process streaming data in real-time (para. 0054).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Kakinada and Qin, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Stark et al., (US PUB 2012/0059882 hereinafter Stark).
Stark was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 16, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos, Kakinada and Qin do not but Stark teaches is based on an application-aware resource scheduling algorithm (“..A publish/subscribe broker messaging system and method for processing a data message based on a message broker scheduling algorithm...” abstract).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos, Kakinada and Qin applying the teachings of Stark because scheduling algorithm can process messages sequentially and simultaneously so as to transmit increased volume of message while ensuring increased levels of service (abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Kakinada and Qin, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Daniel et al., (US PUB 2018/0225611 hereinafter Daniel).
Daniel was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 17, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos, Kakinada and Qin do not but Daniel teaches is based on a simplex algorithm (“...the simplex algorithm...” para. 0042).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos, Kakinada and Qin by applying the teachings of Daniel because Daniel’s simplex algorithm would calculate optimal resource consumption for the providers and consumers with cost (para. 0044 and 0046).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Kakinada and Qin, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Breitgand et al., (US PUB 2020/0042352 hereinafter Breitgand).
Breitgand was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 18, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos, Kakinada and Qin do not but Breitgand teaches is based on a branch and bound algorithm (“...branch-and-bound algorithm...” para. 0056).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos, Kakinada and Qin by applying the teachings of Breitgand because Breitgand would provide branch-and-bound algorithm to calculate optimal solution for load balancing (para. 0056). While Karenos teaches algorithms to produce optimal measurement (para. 0040), Karenos would apply branch-and-bound algorithm to calculate optimal solution for load balancing.
Claims 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos in view of Kakinada and Qin, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Moenickheim et al., (US PUB 2004/0019568 hereinafter Moenickheim).
As to claim 21, Karenos modified by Kakinada and Qin teaches The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium as in claim 11,
Karenos teaches wherein assigning (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033);
Karenos and Qin do not but Kakinada teaches wherein the assigning includes prioritizing assignment of the message brokers to a first application, from among the applications priorities of the applications (“A network server selects a gateway, from among a plurality of alternative candidate gateways, to use for downlink wireless communication to an end node (EN) based on additional factors in addition to RSSI. Exemplary additional factors include: SNR, gateway loading, message loading, backhaul network loading, device type, application type, application priority, operator preferences, device/application black-lists, white-lists, and red-lists, number of devices, number of transmitting devices in a given time interval, operator rules and priorities...” abstract) [that is associated with real-time data transfer over a second application, from among the applications, that is associated with batch data processing].
It 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 was made to modify Karenos by applying the teachings of Kakinada because Kakinada would apply application priorities to select a gateway to provide needs of services for applications (abstract and para. 0064 and 0113).
Karenos, Kakinada and Qin do not but Moenickheim teaches that is associated with real-time data transfer over a second application, from among the applications, that is associated with batch data processing (“...access during an on-line and real-time registration session. It will be appreciated that registration processing could be performed as a batch process....” para. 0038).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos, Kakinada and Qin by applying the teachings of Moenickheim would provide real-time environment for providing on-line and real-time service to customer (para. 0038).
As to claim 22, this claim recites similar scope of claim 21. See rejection for claim 22 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Karenos et al., (US PUB 2011/0307789 hereinafter Karenos) in view of Kakinada et al., (US PUB 20210267014 hereinafter 2021/0267014).
As to claim 20, An apparatus, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network (“...The communications network 18 is a wide area network, a local area network, the Internet, and/or the like, for example. The communications network 18 is wired and/or wireless...” para. 0025);
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces (“..These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer...” para. 0107); and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor (“...a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM)...” para. 0103), configure the processor to
determining whether [applications] in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers (“...In one embodiment, the publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z send/receive message through the active home broker(s) 16a-16z. When the agent 22a-22z finds the active home broker 16a-16z has failed, it instructs the publisher/subscriber to switch to a different home broker...” para. 0051. Note: determining to know which one is publisher/subscriber), the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system (“...EDAs typically employ infrastructure called a “message broker” that receives messages (data) from publishers and delivers the messages to subscribers that have registered to receive such messages....” para. 0012);
determining workloads of the applications (“...the agent 22a-22z measures the traffic amount by counting the amount of messages sent over an overlay link 20a-20z within a unit of time..” para. 0040); and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the [applications] messages are data producers or data consumers (“...at least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber...” para. 0009) and (“In one embodiment, the optimizer computes the set of optimal home brokers 16a-16z for each publisher 12a-12z and subscriber 14a-14z. In another embodiment, the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization,...” Para. 0033),
[and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications], each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource (“In one embodiment, a configurable monitoring agent 22a-22z is deployed for each publisher 12a-12z, subscriber 14a-14z, and broker 16a-16z, for the collection of necessary performance data...” para. 0036).
Karenos does not but Kakinada teaches applications (“...list information indicating one or more gateways which are not to be used for a particular application...” para. 0006) and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications (“A network server selects a gateway, from among a plurality of alternative candidate gateways, to use for downlink wireless communication to an end node (EN) based on additional factors in addition to RSSI. Exemplary additional factors include: SNR, gateway loading, message loading, backhaul network loading, device type, application type, application priority, operator preferences, device/application black-lists, white-lists, and red-lists, number of devices, number of transmitting devices in a given time interval, operator rules and priorities...” abstract. Note: application priority is one of characteristic of the application).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos by applying the teachings of Kakinada because Kakinada would apply application priorities to select a gateway to provide needs of services for applications (abstract and para. 0064 and 0113).
Response to Arguments
CLAIMS 1-20 COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 101 rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments
(“Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The Examiner's contention that the claims are directed to mental processes is an oversimplification that overlooks the specific technological improvements recited in the amended claims.
The claims are directed to a specific, technical improvement in real-time messaging systems.
Many real-time messaging systems are agnostic as to the types of data being sent and the types of applications supported by the messaging systems. This agnostic approach results in message brokers that are either under-provisioned or over-provisioned with resources, leading to performance degradation. The amended claims solve these technical problems by reciting a new and specific architecture for assigning message brokers based on application-aware resource scheduling.
Specifically, amended claim 1 recites, among other things, a "messaging system [] configured to facilitate data transfer from the data producers to the data consumers in real- time, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data from the messaging system," and message brokers where "each of the message brokers [comprises] at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource." This is a specific, concrete method and architecture for resource scheduling in a real-time messaging system that cannot be performed as a mental process.
Further, amended claim 1 recites assigning message brokers by "determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application of the applications; determining a capacity of a first message broker of the message brokers; determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application; ... [and] assigning the first message broker to the first application based on the capacity of the first message broker satisfying the resource requirement of the workload of the first application." This is a specific technological improvement that enhances the functioning of real-time messaging systems by ensuring that message brokers are adequately provisioned to handle the workloads associated with different applications.
The claims do not merely relate to mental processes.
The newly recited steps of determining resource requirements for application workloads, determining broker capacity, and assigning a broker based on resource requirements and the capacity are not tasks a human can practically perform, especially at the scale, speed, and complexity required for real-time messaging systems with multiple applications, brokers, and dynamic workloads.
Similarly, the process of assigning message brokers based on whether applications are data producers or data consumers, combined with workload-based resource determination, is a computer-centric process that leverages the specific architecture of distributed messaging systems, which is beyond the scope of human mental activity.
As held in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), automating a process with specific, detailed rules that improve an existing technology is patent-eligible. Like McRO, the present claims recite specific rules for assigning message brokers based on application workloads and resource requirements, which is a tangible improvement to messaging system technology.
Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific technological solution to a well-documented problem in real-time messaging systems (page 7 - 8 of remark).
In response,
As rejected above, determining and assigning steps are all functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. The capacity of the brokers are all conditions that human being decide for determining and assigning workloads steps. The real-time messaging system merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claim recites to abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Integrate the Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Applicant’s arguments
“Even assuming, arguendo, that some aspects of the claims involve abstract concepts, the claims as a whole integrate these concepts in a specific manner that improves the functioning of the messaging system itself.
The claims are rooted in computer technology.
The amended claims relate to a system that improves how a messaging system assigns brokers to applications based on resource requirements and capacity. The specific method of determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application, determining a capacity of a first message broker, determining that the capacity satisfies the resource requirement, and assigning the first message broker to the first application is a practical application of technology that results in a more efficient and optimized messaging system.
This is not merely an instruction to "apply" an abstract idea. It is a specific implementation that refines how the messaging system allocates resources to ensure that brokers are neither under-provisioned nor over-provisioned.
The claims are analogous to the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which were found patent-eligible because they were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." In the instant case, the claims are necessarily rooted in messaging system technology in order to overcome resource allocation problems specifically arising in the realm of distributed real-time messaging systems.
Therefore, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the technical field of real-time messaging systems.” (page 9 of remark).
In response,
Examiner refers to response above.
Step 2B: The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept
Applicant’s arguments
“Even under Step 2B, the amended claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea by reciting an inventive concept.
The claimed combination is an unconventional approach.
The amended claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements. The specific combination of: (1) determining whether applications in a messaging system are data producers or data consumers; (2) determining workloads of the applications; (3) determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application; (4) determining a capacity of a first message broker comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource; (5) determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application; and (6) assigning message brokers based on the workloads and whether the applications are data producers or data consumers.
This unconventional arrangement provides a tangible technological advancement by enabling application-aware resource scheduling in messaging systems.
In BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court ruled that a non-traditional arrangement of known elements can constitute an inventive concept. Similarly, the present claim arranges the determination of producer/consumer status, workload determination, resource requirement determination, broker capacity determination, and capacity-to-requirement matching in an unconventional manner that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, making it patent- eligible.
Thus, the claims provide significantly more than an abstract idea by reciting a non- conventional improvement to real-time messaging systems. For the reasons above, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejections” (pages 9 - 10 of remark).
In response,
Examiner refers to response above.
CLAIMS 1, 3, 5, 9-11, 13, 15, AND 19-20 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER KARENOS IN VIEW OF ANTINORI
Independent Claim 1
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 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 Karenos and Hawker.
Applicant’s arguments
“Claim 1, as amended herein, recites, in part (added language underlined): .......
..............
Karenos describes "[a] system [that] may include an overlay network linking a plurality of publishers, a plurality of subscribers, and a plurality of brokers" where "an agent carried by each of the publishers, the subscribers, and the brokers ... adjust the network's topology based upon collected runtime data of condition of each link within the network and/or broker availability to any publisher and subscriber." Karenos, Abstract. More specifically, Karenos describes that "the selection of optimal home brokers 16a-16z is subject to constraints such as link capacity, delay, utilization, reliability requirements, and/or the like." Karenos, paragraph [0033]. Additionally, Karenos describes that "the agent 22a-22z measures the traffic amount by counting the amount of messages sent over an overlay link 20a-20z within a unit of time." Karenos, paragraph [0040].
However, Applicant respectfully submits that Karenos fails to teach or suggest at least "determining a resource requirement for a workload of a first application of the applications; determining a capacity of a first message broker; determining that the capacity of the first message broker satisfies the resource requirement of the workload of the first application;" and "assigning including assigning the first message broker to the first application based on the capacity of the first message broker satisfying the resource requirement of the workload of the first application," as Applicant's amended claim 1 recites. In contrast, Karenos merely describes optimizing broker selection based on network-level constraints such as link capacity, delay, and utilization, not based on matching application resource requirements to broker capacity. Karenos's constraints relate to network link conditions, not to determining whether a broker's data processing or data storage resources satisfy the resource requirements of an application's workload.
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that Karenos also fails to teach or suggest the other features of Applicant's amended claim 1.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that Antinori fails to cure the deficiencies of Karenos.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Karenos and Antinori. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 1” (pages 11 - 12 of remark).
In response,
Amended claim 1 is taught by Karenos and Hawker.
Karenos measure network conditions, including but not limited to, the liveliness of the other broker, the link delay, reliability, utilization, traffic amount, and/or the like (para. 0037); Further, reliability manager can configure brokers to satisfy performance goals such as how much data to send along for a broker to achieve load balancing (Para. 0035) and the number of home brokers needed for each publisher and subscriber pair (para. 0041). A threshold is considered to be capacity of the message broker (para. 0099). Hawker teaches real-time messaging system handle real-time data feeds (para. 0054).
Therefore, Karenos and Hawker teaches amended claim 1.
Independent Claim 11
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 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 Karenos and Kakinada.
Applicant’s arguments
“(Claim 11, as amended herein, recites, in part (added language underlined):
determining whether applications in a messaging system are data
producers or data consumers, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion
of the data from the messaging system;
determining workloads of the applications; and
assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications
based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and priorities of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource, the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of
individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications.
Applicant respectfully submits that the applied references fail to teach or suggest at least these features. For example, Karenos fails to teach or suggest at least "the assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications," as Applicant's amended claim 11 recites. In contrast, Karenos merely describes optimizing broker selection based on network-level constraints such as link capacity, delay, and link utilization, not based on correlating the processor and memory availability of individual brokers to application workloads. Karenos's constraints relate to network link conditions and broker availability for failover purposes, not to matching the data processing or data storage resources of individual message brokers to the resource demands of application workloads.
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that Antinori fails to cure the deficiencies of Karenos.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claim 11 would not have been obvious in view of Karenos and Antinori. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 11.” (pages 12 - 13 of remark).
In response,
Amended claim 11 is taught by Karenos and Kakinada.
In Karenos, central monitor monitors brokers' utilization of resources such as CPU, storage, network, and/or memory and detected and report when broker’s resource utilization is higher than a threshold, uneven usage between two or more brokers that exceeds a threshold (para. 0041 – 0042); the detecting above would comprise correlating CPU and memory availability of brokers. At least one broker designated for each publisher and subscriber (para. 0009) and the selection is based on utilization (para. 0033.
Therefore, Karenos teaches limitation “assigning including correlating processor and memory availability of individual message brokers to the workloads of the applications”.
Independent Claim 20
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 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 Karenos and Kakinada.
Claim 20, as amended herein, recites, in part (added language underlined):
determine whether applications in a messaging system are data producers
or data consumers, the data producers configured to provide data to the messaging system and the data consumers configured to retrieve at least a portion of the data
from the messaging system;
determine workloads of the applications; and
assign message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based
on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers
or data consumers, and an application type and associated characteristics of the
applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data
processing resource or a data storage resource.
Applicant respectfully submits that the applied references fail to teach or suggest at least these features. For example, Karenos fails to teach or suggest at least "assign message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the applications are data producers or data consumers, and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications, each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource," as Applicant's amended claim 20 recites. In contrast, Karenos merely describes optimizing broker selection based on network-level constraints such as link capacity, delay, and link utilization.
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that Antinori fails to cure the deficiencies of Karenos.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claim 20 would not have been obvious in view of Karenos and Antinori. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 20.” (Pages 13 – 14 of remark).
In response,
It is combination of Karenos and Kakinada, not any alone, teaches amended claim 20.
Karenos teaches assigning message brokers of the messaging system to the applications based on the workloads of the applications, whether the [applications] messages are data producers or data consumers (para. 0009 and 0033), each of the message brokers comprising at least one of a data processing resource or a data storage resource (para. 0035 – 0036 and 0041).
Karenos does not but Kakinada teaches applications (para. 0006) and an application type and associated characteristics of the applications (abstract. Note: application priority is one of characteristic of the application).
It 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 was made to modify Karenos by applying the teachings of Kakinada because Kakinada would apply application priorities to select a gateway to provide needs of services for applications (abstract and para. 0064 and 0113).
Dependent Claims 3, S, and 9-10
Applicant’s arguments
“Claims 3, 5, and 9-10 ultimately depend from independent claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is allowable over the cited documents. Therefore, claims 3, 5, and 9-10 are also allowable over the cited documents of record for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that each recites.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 5, and 9-10.” (page 14 of remark).
In response,
All independent claims are amended differently. Therefore, their dependent claims are rejected to their independent claims.
Dependent Claims 13, 1S, and 19
Applicant’s arguments
“Claims 13, 15, and 19 ultimately depend from independent claim 11. As discussed above, claim 11 is allowable over the cited documents. Therefore, claims 13, 15, and 19 are also allowable over the cited documents of record for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that each recites.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 13, 15, and 19.” (page 14 of remark).
In response,
All independent claims are amended differently. Therefore, their dependent claims are rejected to their independent claims.
ADDITIONAL REJECTIONS UNDER § 103
Applicant’s arguments
“The Office rejects claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Karenos in view of Antinori and US Patent Appln. Pub. No. 2018/0091588 to Qin, et al., (hereinafter, "Qin").
The Office rejects claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Karenos in view of Antinori, Qin, and US Patent Appln. Pub. No. 2012/0059882 to Stark, et al., (hereinafter, "Stark").
The Office rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Karenos in view of Antinori, Qin, and US Patent Appln. Pub. No. 2020/0042352 to Breitgand, et al., (hereinafter, "Breitgand").
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. In addition, the pending dependent claims ultimately depend from independent claim 1 or 11. As discussed above, claims 1 and 11 are allowable over the cited documents. Therefore, the pending dependent claims are also allowable over the cited documents of record for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that each recites.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejections.“ (pages 14 - 15 of remark).
In response,
All independent claims are amended differently. Therefore, their dependent claims are rejected to their independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Beeco, (US PUB 2011/0119517), discloses method for Classifying Power Network Failures, wherein the communication can be real-time, near real-time, and/or batch communications, and may be synchronous, asynchronous, or any combination thereof (title, abstract and figures 1 – 18).
Chowdhury, (US PUB 2010/0124933), discloses a gateway implemented a mobility management entity (MME) function to monitor load conditions on the MME function in real time and to periodically determine a load capacity value based on the load conditions (title, abstract and figures 1 – 11).
Ramamurthy, (US PUB 2022/0405619), discloses method for updating a deployed machine learning model with actual entity data depending on anomalies detected in real-time streaming data, wherein the service provider could be performed as synchronous/batch processing (title, abstract and figures 1 - 12).
Kang, (US PAT 11,360,985), discloses a distributed messaging system that uses a publish/subscribe paradigm, wherein the broker may classify KAFKA messages published by the message publisher by topic, and load and manage the classified KAFKA messages (title, abstract and figures 1 – 11).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights