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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination.
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 - 20 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;
determining, by the device, workloads of the applications; 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”.
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; 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" 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.
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.
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 9. The method as in claim 1, wherein assigning message brokers is based on ensuring application resource requirements do not exceed resource capacity of the message brokers 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. This is A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim of claim 1. Further, the additional elements processor and computer-readable medium 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.
As to claims 12 - 19, these claims recite similar scope of claims 2 - 9. See rejection for claims 2 - 9 above.
As to claim 20, this is an apparatus claim of claim 11. See rejection for claim 11 above. Further, the additional elements one or more network interfaces and a network 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.
Claims 11 – 19 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, 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, 9 – 10 – 11, 13, 15, 19 - 20 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 Antinori et al., (US PUB 2022/0374296 hereinafter Antinori).
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);
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); 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).
While Karenos teaches brokers receiving and sending messages from publishers and subscribers (para. 0034), Karenos does not but Antinori teaches messages produced by applications or data publishers and/or subscribers (“... For example, a publisher may be a smart thermostat that sends temperature data to a message broker, a social media network that sends new subscriber data to a message broker, a smart refrigerator that sends data regarding food stored in the refrigerator to a message broker, etc...” para. 0012).
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 Antinori because Antinori would provide applications running on publishers and subscribers to send/receive message via brokers (para. 0012).
As to claim 3, Karenos modified by Antinori 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 Antinori 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).
While Karenos teaches brokers receiving and sending messages from publishers and subscribers (para. 0034), Karenos does not but Antinori teaches messages produced by applications or data publishers and/or subscribers (“... For example, a publisher may be a smart thermostat that sends temperature data to a message broker, a social media network that sends new subscriber data to a message broker, a smart refrigerator that sends data regarding food stored in the refrigerator to a message broker, etc...” para. 0012).
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 Antinori because Antinori would provide applications running on publishers and subscribers to send/receive message via brokers (para. 0012).
As to claim 9, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, 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).
As to claim 10, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos does not but Antinori teaches wherein the applications are selected from a group consisting of: social media applications; financial applications; and online games (“...For example, a publisher may be a smart thermostat that sends temperature data to a message broker, a social media network that sends new subscriber data to a message broker....” para. 0012). See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 11, this is a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. Further, Karenos teaches tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon (“...a computer readable program codes coupled to tangible media...” para. 0014) processor on a computer (“..These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer...” para. 0107).
As to claims 13, 15, and 19, these claims recite similar scope of claims 3, 5, and 9. See rejection for claims 3, 5, and 9 above.
As to claim 20, this is an apparatus claim of claim 11. See rejection for claim 11 above. Further, Karenos teaches 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);
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos, in view of Antinori, 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 2, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos and Antinori do not but teaches wherein the messaging system comprises a distributed event streaming platform (“...balancing partition distribution across nodes within a message broker cluster so as to balance the broker nodes' workloads. During operation, the system receives a stream of messages at the cluster, wherein the message stream is divided into topics,...” 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 Antinori by applying the teachings of Qin because Qin would distribute streams of messages within message broker cluster to balance workloads (abstract).
As to claim 4, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos and Antinori do not but Qin teaches wherein assigning message brokers (“..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) is based on correlating CPU and memory availability of individual message brokers to corresponding 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...” 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 Antinori by applying the teachings of Qin because Qin would monitor CPU and memory utilizations make sure resources are available to provide efficient system.
As to claim 12, this claim recites similar scope of claim 2. See rejection for claim 2 above.
As to claim 14, this claim recites similar scope of claim 4. See rejection for claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Antinori, 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 Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos and Antinori do not but Stark teaches wherein assigning message brokers 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 Antinori 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).
As to claim 16, this claim recites similar scope of claim 6. See rejection for claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Antinori, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Daniel et al., (US PUB 2018/0225611 hereinafter Daniel).
As to claim 7, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos teaches wherein assigning message brokers 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 Antinori 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).
As to claim 17, this claim recites similar scope of claim 7. See rejection for claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Antinori, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Breitgand et al., (US PUB 2020/0042352 hereinafter Breitgand).
As to claim 8, Karenos modified by Antinori teaches The method as in claim 1, Karenos and Antinori do not but Breitgand teaches wherein assigning message brokers 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 Antinori 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.
As to claim 18, this claim recites similar scope of claim 8. See rejection for claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Dinh, (US PUB 2021/0135966), discloses data streaming infrastructure of message producer, message consumers and message brokers (title, abstract and figures 1 – 9).
Sewell, (US PUB 2023/0252335), discloses a method of branching and diving for solving an optimal computational problem on a framework (title, abstract and figures 1 – 7).
Keesara, (US PUB 2019/0014033), discloses a method of selecting gateway to support interdomain multicasting routing of multicast stream (title, abstract and figures 1 – 4).
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