DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present amended application include :
Claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-9 and 13-21 were amended.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are being considered on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. & 101
Applicant argues that:
“The dual-queue architecture, hierarchical comparison order, and periodic threshold
determination collectively constitute an inventive concept that integrates frequency analysis into a specific technical solution. These elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art of computer network-they represent a technical improvement to how the electronic device monitors and detects abnormal network traffic.”.
Examiner respectfully disagree and submit that:
With regard to claims 1, and 13-14, they recite abstract idea recitations of “comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence, wherein the first queue is configured to store related information of first requests within the preset time period, and a request frequency represented by request data of each of the first requests is greater than a second threshold”, “matching the network resource identifier of the target request”, “determining request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue”, “determining the target request to be an abnormal request” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person is capable of mentally “comparing …”, “matching “ “determining…”, using threshold , preset time by making a simple plan for the use of the network resource as a step of evaluation and judgement (MPEP 2106). Further, claims 1, 13 and 22 recite further additional elements are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Claims 1, and 13-14, also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 1, and 13-14, do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-21 appear to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103
Applicant argues that:
“Thus, Ma fails to disclose or suggest at least the features "wherein the first queue is configured to store related information of first requests within the preset time period, and a request frequency represented by request data of each of the first requests is greater than a second threshold" and "wherein the second queue is configured to store related information of second requests within the preset time period, and a request frequency represented by request data of each of the second requests is less than or equal to the second threshold," as now recited in claim 1.”, “Thus, Ma fails to disclose or suggest at least the features "comparing the network
resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence", and "in a case where the first queue does not comprise a first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of second requests in a second queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence," as now recited in claim 1”.
In response, Singh et al (US 2021/0224178) is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding as stated above.” (emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagree and submit that: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the newly cited reference Hirose et al (US 2012/0084165) being used in the current rejection.
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 1-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 recites An abnormal request processing method, executed by an electronic device and comprising: “ comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence”
at an end of the preset time period, :in a case where the first queue does not comprise a first request matching the network resource identifier”, “in a case where the second queue comprises a second request matching the network resource identifier” , “determining request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue, and in a case where the request data of the target request meets a first preset condition, determining the target request to be an abnormal request” , “in a case where the first queue does not comprise a first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of second requests in a second queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence, wherein the second queue is configured to store related information of second requests within the preset time period”, “updating request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request; and at an end of the preset time period, determining request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue, and in a case where a request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to a first threshold, determining the target request to be an abnormal request” .
The limitations of “comparing”, “determining…” and “matching” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an "abnormal request processing “, “preset time period”, “request data”, “target request”, “queue”, “preset condition”, “abnormal request”, “request” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2,
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements “acquiring a target request within a preset time period, wherein the target request comprises a network resource identifier”, “wherein the second queue is configured to store related information of second requests within the preset time period”, “a request frequency represented by request data of a second request each of the second requests is less than or equal to the second threshold”, “in a case where the second queue comprises a second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, updating request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, and at an end of the preset time period”, “in a case where a request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to a first threshold “, which “acquiring … “ and “updating” Which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “target request”, “preset time period “, “network resource identifier”, “queue”, “requests “, “request frequency”, “request data”, “threshold” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B,
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations " ““acquiring … “, and “updating” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
Therefore, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible.
Further claim 2 recites further additional abstract idea of “comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with the network resource identifiers of the first requests “, “… request matching the network resource identifier…”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 2 recites the additional element “ updating request data of the first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, wherein the request data represents a request frequency”, “ wherein after updating the request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier, the method further comprises: in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is greater than the second threshold , moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request from the second queue to the first queue.”, which “updating” and “moving …” which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “network resource identifier”, “threshold”, “queue “, “request frequency” is merely reciting the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 2, the limitations updating” and “moving …” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
With regard to claim 3, it recites further additional abstract idea of “wherein at the end of the preset time period, determining the request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue comprises: at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier is in the first queue, determining the request data of the target request according to request data of a first request corresponding to the network resource identifier in the first queue”, “ or at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier is in the second queue, determining the request data of the target request according to request data of a second request corresponding to the network resource identifier in the second queue”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The additional element of “preset time period “, “target request “, “request”, “queue”, “network resource identifier” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 4 recites additional abstract idea of “… request matching the network resource identifier….”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 4 recites the additional element “after updating the request data of the first request matching the network resource identifier, further comprising: moving related information of the first request matching the network resource identifier to a head of the first queue”, which “updating” and “moving …” which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further claim 4, the limitations "“updating” and “moving …” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
Further claim 5 recites further additional abstract idea of “… request matching the network resource identifier….”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claims 5 recites the additional element “wherein moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to the first queue comprises: moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to a head of the first queue, and deleting the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue””, which “moving …” , “deleting ..”, which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further claim 5, the limitations “moving …” , “deleting ..”, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
Further claim 6 recites additional abstract idea of “… request matching the network resource identifier….”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claims 6 recites the additional element “after moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to the first queue, further comprising: in a case where a length of the first queue meets a third preset condition, deleting related information of a first request meeting a fourth preset condition from the first queue”, which “moving …” , “deleting ..”, which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further claim 6, the limitations “moving …” , “deleting ..”, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
Further claim 7 recites additional abstract idea of “… request matching the network resource identifier….”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claims 7 recites the additional element ““after updating the request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier, further comprising: in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is less than or equal to the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request to a head of the second queue.”, which “updating”, “moving …” , which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further claim 7, the limitations “updating” and “moving …” , is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
Further claim 8 recites additional abstract idea of “… request matching the network resource identifier….”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claims 8 recites the additional element ““in a case where the second queue does not comprise the second request matching the network resource identifier, storing related information of the target request into the second queue; and in a case where a length of the second queue meets a fifth preset condition, deleting related information of a second request at a tail of the second queue.”, which “storing ” , “deleting ..”, which are merely a recitation of insignificant post-solution data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further claim 8, the limitations “storing ” , “deleting ..”, , is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Verset Dev. Group Inc....
The additional element of “network resource identifier”,” target request”, “request”, “a head of the first queue” is merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regard to claim 9, it recites further additional abstract idea of “ determining the target request to be the abnormal request comprises: at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier is in the first queue and the request data of the target request meets the first preset condition, determining the target request to be the abnormal request..”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 9, recite additional element of “wherein in the case where the request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to the first threshold”, “at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier of the target request is in the first queue and the request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to the first threshold, which are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “allocates” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regard to claim 10, it recites further additional abstract idea of “wherein the target request comprises a service identifier; and wherein after determining the target request to be the abnormal request, the method further comprises: determining a reason for abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request. “as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
With regard to claim 11, it recites further additional abstract idea of “wherein determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request comprises: in a case where total traffic consumption of a terminal within the preset time period meets a sixth preset condition, determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request. “as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The additional element of “preset time period “, “request”, “queue”, “network resource identifier” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
As to claims 13-21.
Claim 13: Similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claim 13 Further, claim 13 recites computer components. The terms, “processor”, “storage apparatus”, “program”,” one program, when executed by the at least one processor”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The ““processor”, “storage apparatus”, “program” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Claim 14: Similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claim 13 Further, claim 13 recites computer components. The terms, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer program”, “the computer program, when executed by a processor””, which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer program”, “processor””, are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Similar analysis as claims 1-8 applies to claims 15-21.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA DEQIANG et al. “Data request processing method and system and computing device, CN111526181A, 2020-04-01, examiner relies on attached Google patent translation “patents.google.com/patent/CN111526181A/endow=CN111526181A” as the official translation document of the CN111526181A, MA, hereinafter) in view of Hirose et al (US 2012/0084165, Hirose hereinafter).
As to claim 1, MA teaches an abnormal request processing method (e.g., abstract, page 1, “the data request is determined to be abnormal”) executed by an electronic device and , comprising:
acquiring a target request within a preset time period (e.g., see abstract, page 1, “to acquire data based on the data request “, “request times “, “the preset times”, “a first preset time interval” and “acquiring a data request” in page 6.
Thus the “data request “represent the target request, the “request times “coupled with “preset time interval” include a preset time period), wherein the target request comprises a network resource identifier (e.g., see page 7, “the data request includes a request identifier, a link corresponding to the data”.
Thus, the “request identifier coupled with a link” include the network resource identifier);
first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence (e.g., see page 6, “a data request from the request queue” and “order of the data requests in the request queue” in page 12), wherein the first queue is configured to store related information of first requests within the preset time period (e.g., see FIG. 3, page 12, “the data request may be added to a request queue”, “one data request is obtained from the request queue based on the addition order of the data requests in the request queue “. Thus, the “data” , “order” include related information of first requests);
in a case where the first queue does not comprise a first request matching the network resource identifier, a second queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence (e.g., see page 24, “a request failure information list is generated based on the failure information for the plurality of data requests”.
Thus, .the “information list” in page 25 represents the second queue), wherein the second queue is configured to store related information of second requests within the preset time period, and a request frequency represented by request data of each of the second request (e.g., page 24, “number of requests”, “duration of the first predetermined time interval “, “ the request frequency of each data request failure information recorded in the current request failure information list “, “a predetermined frequency”. Thus, the “number of requests” include second requests);
in a case where the second queue comprises a second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, updating request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request (e.g., see page 25, wherein “includes the number of requests of the data request, and the number of requests of the corresponding data request in the request failure information list is updated when the current number of requests of the data request is updated” and “the request times of the corresponding data requests in the failure information list are updated based on the request identifier of the new data request, that is, 1 time is added on the basis of clearing the request times of the original data request, so as to re-record the request times of the new data request” in page 26.
see page 14, “each data request includes a corresponding, unique request identification. The failure information of the data request includes a request identifier of the data request, so that the corresponding data request failure information can be queried, obtained, updated, and deleted from the failure information list of the data storage device 140 based on the request identifier” in page 14.
Thus, the “updated, and deleted from the failure information list” coupled with data request is updated, therefore in a case where the second queue comprises a second request matching the network resource identifier updating request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier); and
at an end of the preset time period, determining request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue, determining the target request to be an abnormal request ( e.g., see page 26, “a first predetermined time interval” , “data request is abnormal”, “data request is abnormal “ and , wherein “when the success rate of the data requests in the preset time is greater than a first threshold value and/or the number of successful times of continuous data requests is greater than a second threshold value, marking that the data service state is normal, otherwise, marking that the data service state is abnormal.” in page see page 15.
Thus, the “first threshold value” coupled with “predetermined time interval “include a first preset condition, therefore at an end of the preset time period, determining request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue, and in a case where the request data of the target request meets a first preset condition, determining the target request to be an abnormal request”).
However, MA does not teach explicitly teach comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in the first queue, and a request frequency represented by request data of each of the first requests is greater than a second threshold, comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of second requests in a second queue, a request frequency represented by request data of a second request each of the second requests is less than or equal to the second threshold, and in a case where a request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to a first threshold.
Hirose teaches comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence ( e.g., para [0126] The resource request can be queued. If the first user abandons the request for the tickets or other resource, optionally, rather than removing the request from the queue, the queue can be scanned by a scanner module or the like in order to locate a similar resource request. In this example, the resource request can be a request from another user for 2 adult tickets at the same price level for the same event as in the first user request. The shopping cart and/or tickets in the shopping cart can now be assigned to the second user request via an appropriate identifier.) , the preset time period (e.g., para 120, “calculated expiration time is greater then a configured limit” and “providing a user with information on remaining time to complete a task to avoid abandonment of the user's place in a request queue” in para 122, see FIG. 5) , determining if the browser is transmitting messages at greater than a first frequency during the first period; in response to determining that the browser has ceased transmitting messages during the first period or that the browser is transmitting messages at greater than a first frequency during the first period, determining that the request is not to be fulfilled”
[0109] where the new number of requests is set equal to the integer portion of the rounded-up value of the adjustment value multiplied by the adjustment value. At state 312, if the adjustment value is less than a first threshold “M”, such as a very small value or fraction of a request, then the value of the new number of requests is modified in the appropriate direction by a number of requests “N”. For example, N can have a value of +2 or −2.
[0113] the result is greater than a first threshold, such as 45 seconds, the browser will poll again after a first delay, such as 45 seconds. If the result is less than a second threshold, such as 4 seconds, the browser will poll again after a second minimum delay, such as 4 seconds.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of MA with those of Hirose because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
MA et al. disclose acquiring a target request within a preset time period, wherein the target request comprises a network resource identifier while Hirose et al. teaches comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with network resource identifiers of first requests in a first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence.
Incorporating the teachings of Hirose et al. into the system of MA et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by Hirose et al., into the system of MA et al., consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, Hirose et al. explicitly recognize benefits to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110) . —that would naturally be desirable in the system of MA et al.
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining MA et al. with Hirose et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 2, MA teaches further in a case where the first queue comprises the first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, updating request data of the first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request, wherein the request data represents a request frequency (e.g., see page 17, “update the current request frequency of the data request, that is, increase the original request frequency of the record of the data request by 1 time as the current request frequency“); and wherein after updating the request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request (see rejection of claim1 above, see page 13, “the current request number of the data request is updated, that is, the original request number of the record of the data request is increased by 1 time as the current request number” and “updated based on the request identifier of the new data request” in page 15. ) , moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request from the second queue to the first queue (e.g., see page 26, “ wherein “the request times of the corresponding data requests in the failure information list are updated based on the request identifier of the new data request, that is, 1 time is added on the basis of clearing the request times of the original data request, so as to re-record the request times of the new data request”, “after waiting a first predetermined time interval, data may again be requested from the third party server 130 based on a new data request.“. Thus, the” information list are updated” including the second queue coupled with “a first predetermined time interval, data may again be requested”, “clearing the request times of the original data request, so as to re-record the request times of the new data request”, therefore moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to the first queue). However, Ma does not teach wherein after comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with the network resource identifiers of the first requests in the first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence, in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is greater than the second threshold.
Hirose teaches wherein after comparing the network resource identifier of the target request with the network resource identifiers of the first requests in the first queue according to the network resource identifier of the target request in sequence (see rejection of claim 1 above), in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is greater than the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request from the second queue to the first queue (e.g., para [0128] In order to more efficiently assign abandoned resources to other requests, optionally a cache of abandoned resources can be kept in local memory, wherein the abandoned resources are kept in the abandoned resource cache for a predetermined amount of time or other period of time. If no similar requests to which the cache abandoned resource can be allocated to are located within the period of time, then the cached resources can be returned to a resource pool after a certain or predetermined amount of time.
[0129] In addition, in order to avoid keeping a resource which has been abandoned many times in a queue, and hence is less likely to be actually used in the near term, if a cached resource has been repeatedly assigned and abandoned more than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined time period, the repeatedly abandoned resource is optionally removed from the resource cache and returned to the resource pool.
Thus, in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is greater than the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request from the second queue to the first queue).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 3, MA teaches wherein at the end of the preset time period, determining the request data of the target request according to the first queue or the second queue comprises: at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier is in the first queue, determining the request data of the target request according to request data of a first request corresponding to the network resource identifier of the target request is in the first queue (e.g., see page 22, “the data requests in the request queue” and “the data request includes a request identifier of the data request, in page 25) ; or at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier is in the second queue, determining the request data of the target request according to request data of a second request corresponding to the network resource identifier in the second queue.
As to claim 4, MA teaches further after updating the request data of the first request matching the network resource identifier, (see rejection of claim 2 above). However, Ma does not teach moving related information of the first request matching the network resource identifier of the target request to a head of the first queue. Hirose teaches moving related information of the first request matching the network resource identifier to a head of the first queue (e.g., para [0127] When an abandoned resource is assigned to a similar request, the request can optionally be advanced in the queue to the position of the abandoned request or to the head or first position in the queue to better ensure a sale of the tickets is made quickly.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 5, MA teaches wherein moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to the first queue , moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request from the second queue ( see rejection of claim 2 above) , and deleting the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue (e.g., page 25, “deleted from the failure information list”) . However, MA does not teach to a head of the first queue. Hirose teaches moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to a head of the first queue ( e.g., para [0127] When an abandoned resource is assigned to a similar request, the request can optionally be advanced in the queue to the position of the abandoned request or to the head or first position in the queue to better ensure a sale of the tickets is made quickly.” ,therefore, moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to a head of the first queue would have been inherent).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 6, MA teaches further after moving the related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier from the second queue to the first queue, deleting related information (see rejection of claim 2 above, page 25, “deleted from the failure information list”). However, MA does not teach further comprising: in a case where a length of the first queue meets a third preset condition, deleting related information of a first request meeting a fourth preset condition from the first queue. However, Hirose teaches in a case where a length of the first queue meets a third preset condition , deleting related information of a first request meeting a fourth preset condition from the first queue (e.g., para 143, “ type of request, as well as one or more threshold or preset values” for “requests at greater than a certain or predetermined frequency, indicating that the requests are being automatically made, such as by a robot or spider, the requests are optionally removed from the queue ” in para 30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 7, MA teaches does not teaches in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is less than or equal to the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request to a head of the second queue. Hirose teaches in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is less than or equal to the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request to a head of the second queue (see rejection of claim 1 para 143, “ type of request, as well as one or more threshold or preset values” for “requests at greater than a certain or predetermined frequency, indicating that the requests are being automatically made, such as by a robot or spider, the requests are optionally removed from the queue ” in para 30,
(e.g., para [0127] to the head or first position in the queue to better ensure a sale of the tickets is made quickly” Thus, in a case where a request frequency represented by the updated request data of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request is less than or equal to the second threshold, moving related information of the second request matching the network resource identifier of the target request to a head of the second queue would have been inherent).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 8, MA teaches further in a case where the second queue does not comprise the second request matching the network resource identifier, storing related information of the target request into the second queue (see rejection of claim 1 above). However, MA does not teach in a case where a length of the second queue meets a fifth preset condition, deleting related information of a second request at a tail of the second queue. Hirose teaches in a case where a length of the second queue meets a fifth preset condition, deleting related information of a second request at a tail of the second queue (e.g., wherein “ requests at greater than a certain or predetermined frequency, indicating that the requests are being automatically made, such as by a robot or spider, the requests are optionally removed from the queue ”. Thus, in a case where a length of the second queue meets a fifth preset condition, deleting related information of a second request at a tail of the second queue would have been inherent).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 9, MA teaches further determining the target request to be the abnormal request comprises :at the end of the preset time period, in a case where the network resource identifier of the target request is in the first queue , determining the target request to be the abnormal request (e.g., see page 7, “in the preset time is larger than a first threshold value and/or the number of times of successful continuous data requests is larger than a second threshold value, marking that the data service state is normal, otherwise, marking that the data service state is abnormal”),
MA does not wherein in the case where the request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to the first threshold, the request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to the first threshold.
Hirose teaches wherein in the case where the request frequency represented by the request data of the target request is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 10, MA teaches further wherein the target request comprises a service identifier; and wherein after determining the target request to be the abnormal request (see rejection of claim 1 above). However, MA does not teach determining a reason for abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request. Hirose teaches determining a reason for abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request (e.g., para 75, “the request maximum is reached during the configured time period, subsequent requests are blocked from the corresponding IP address. The duration of the block time is also configurable. Optionally, the throttle module will track source IP address, rather than SID/BID, if client cookie information is unavailable. The throttle module employs the network verification module, prior to applying a block to a given source IP address.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 11, MA does not teach wherein determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request comprises: in a case where total traffic consumption of a terminal within the preset time period meets a sixth preset condition, determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request. However, Hirose teaches wherein determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request comprises: in a case where total traffic consumption of a terminal within the preset time period meets a sixth preset condition , determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request (e.g., one or more threshold or preset values”, “ used to determine how to allocate resources to requests” for “determining if the ticket reservation has expired at least partly as a result of the user failing to timely complete the Web page form; and after determining that the ticket reservation has expired, causing a reservation expiration notice to be presented to the user” in para 16.
Thus, herein determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request comprises: in a case where total traffic consumption of a terminal within the preset time period meets a sixth preset condition , determining the reason for the abnormal traffic consumption according to the service identifier comprised in the abnormal request would have been inherent) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MA by adopting the teachings of Hirose to enable “new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.” (see Hirose, see para 110).
As to claim 13, see rejection of claim 1 above. MA teaches further an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform (e.g., see page 19, “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a computing device 200, according to one embodiment of the invention. As shown in FIG. 2, in a basic configuration 202, a computing device 200 typically includes a system memory 206 and one or more processors 204. A memory bus 208 may be used for communication between the processor 204 and the system memory 206.”. Thus, an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform would have been inherent).
As to claim 14, see rejection of claim 1 above. DEQIANG teaches further a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements (e.g., see page 19, “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a computing device 200, according to one embodiment of the invention. As shown in FIG. 2, in a basic configuration 202, a computing device 200 typically includes a system memory 206 and one or more processors 204. A memory bus 208 may be used for communication between the processor 204 and the system memory 206.”. Thus, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements would have been inherent).
As to claims 15-21, see rejection of claims 2-8 above.
Conclusion
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 ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights