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 – 24 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 - 24 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:
receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information; and
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information; the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information 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 of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional element of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information includes a construction list defining an operation type for the child job 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 of claim 1, further comprising:
creating, at the first compute service manager, a first job proxy representing the child job for the parent job, wherein a second job proxy is created at the second compute service manager representing the parent job for the child job 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 4, The method of claim 3, wherein the first job proxy and the second job proxy are used for direct communication between the parent job and the child job 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 5, The method of claim 4, further comprising:
generating a communication message to transmit from the parent job to the child job; wrapping the communication message in an envelope message containing information about source compute service manager, destination compute service manager, source job, and destination job ; and transmitting the wrapped communication message using a remote procedure call 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 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the child job token includes a unique ID, a parent job ID, a token creation time, and a time-to-live value 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 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the response message includes a child job ID and a compute service manager ID 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 8, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting an abort message to the child job in response to the parent job being aborted 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 9, the claim recites
A machine-storage medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information; and
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information; the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information 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 of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
The additional elements A machine-storage medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations 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.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional element of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
The additional elements A machine-storage medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations 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.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claims 10 - 16, see rejection for claims 2 – 8 above.
As to claim 17, a system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information; and
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of generating a request message including the child job token and configuration information; the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information 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 of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
The additional elements at least one hardware processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor 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.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional element of receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request to create a child job for a parent job; generating a child job token;
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager;
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager including confirmation that the child job was created 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).
The additional elements at least one hardware processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor 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.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claims 18 - 24, see rejection for claims 2 - 8 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 15, and 17 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh et al., (US PUB 2017/0359313 hereinafter Livneh) in view of Pitio et al., (US PUB 2016/0173364 hereinafter Pitio).
As to claim 1, Livneh teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a first compute service manager, a request (“...A proxy server receives a request directed to a web server coupled to the proxy server from a user device...” abstract) [to create a child job for a parent job];
generating a [child] job token (“...The proxy server assigns one or more tokens...” abstract);
generating a request message including the [child] job token [and configuration information] (“...The proxy server processes the request, replacing the one or more items of PII in the request with one or more anonymized strings. The one or more anonymized strings include the one or more tokens...” abstract. Note: replacing... is generating a request message) and (“In some embodiments, the PII includes any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, home address, personal phone number, personal email address, personal identifier (ID) (e.g., passport number, driver's license number, social security number, etc.), date of birth, place of birth, mother's maiden name, and/or biometric records. In some embodiments, the PII includes any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and/or employment information. In some embodiments, the PII includes information related to a user device associated with an individual, such as a MAC address and/or other types of device identifier...” para. 0030);
transmitting the request message to a second compute service manager (“...The proxy server forwards the processed request including the one or more anonymized strings to the web server.” abstract);
[the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job based on the child job token and configuration information]; and
receiving, at the first compute service manager, a response message from the second compute service manager (“...the proxy server 110 receives (528) a response to the request from the web server...” figure 5A and associated text, especially para. 0085) [including confirmation that the child job was created];
Livneh does not but Pitio teaches to create a child job for a parent job and the second compute service manager configured to construct the child job linking the child job to the parent job (“...receive, from an instructor device, a parent request for execution of at least one parent data process executable by a plurality of computing resources at least one computing resource; generate at least one child request for execution of at least one corresponding child data process for routing to at least one corresponding destination device, each of the at least one child data process for executing at least a portion of the at least one parent data process....” abstract. Note: specification, para. 0028, 0043, etc. disclose child job is child query/request) based on the child job token and configuration information (“...For example: (1) the client may provide a key to a broker for use in relation to the client's orders, (2) a broker may create a key to be provided back to the client, and (3) a broker may create a broker specific key and utilize a combination of the broker specific key and the client key in securing information...” para. 0097. Note: key is considered to be token) and (“...The intermediary system processors generate one or more child requests for routing to one or more destination devices. The child requests include child data processes for executing at least a portion of the parent data process. For example, a parent request may include a data process to execute a trade for 10,000 shares of stock ABC, and the processors can generate multiple child requests to execute portions of the 10,000 shares at different destination devices (such as computing resources at stock exchanges, other brokers, dark pools, etc)....” para. 0072. Note: configuration information is operation type of child job as recited in claim 2) and including confirmation that the child job was created (“...In some embodiments, the child request data can include data from one or more response messages from the destination devices(s) 108 associated with the corresponding child requests. For example, the response messages can include acknowledgements, rejection, executions, confirmations...” para. 0089).
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 Livneh by applying the teachings of Pitio because Pitio would manage data processes using child and parent processes to track all requests (para. 0093).
As to claim 2, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 1, Livneh does not but Pitio teaches wherein the configuration information includes a construction list defining an operation type for the [child] job (“...The intermediary system processors generate one or more child requests for routing to one or more destination devices. The child requests include child data processes for executing at least a portion of the parent data process. For example, a parent request may include a data process to execute a trade for 10,000 shares of stock ABC, and the processors can generate multiple child requests to execute portions of the 10,000 shares at different destination devices (such as computing resources at stock exchanges, other brokers, dark pools, etc)....” para. 0072).
(“...transmitting, from an instructor device to an intermediary device, a parent request for execution of at least one parent data process executable by at least one computing resource, the parent request for routing as at least one child request by the intermediary device for execution by at least one destination...” para. 0015).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 1, Livneh does not but Pitio teaches further comprising:
creating, at the first compute service manager, a first job proxy representing the child job for the parent job, wherein a second job proxy is created at the second compute service manager representing the parent job for the child job (“The second system can, in some examples, be an intermediary system configured to receive the data processing request from the instructor system; generate one or more child requests, each for executing at least a portion of the received data processing request...” para. 0042 and 0045) and (“...The proxy may implemented in hardware or software (or a combination thereof) and may be physically present at the output of one broker, or at the input of another broker, or both, or may be remotely located from both (e.g., across a network)...” para. 0181).
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 Livneh by applying the teachings of Pitio because Pitio would provide each proxy for each system to act a communicator between two or more systems to receive or send to another system (para. 0042 and 0045).
As to claim 4, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 3, Livneh does not but Pitio teaches wherein the first job proxy and the second job proxy are used for direct communication between the parent job and the child job (“The second system can, in some examples, be an intermediary system configured to receive the data processing request from the instructor system; generate one or more child requests, each for executing at least a portion of the received data processing request...” para. 0042 and 0045).
See motivation for claim 3 above.
As to claim 5, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 4, Livneh teaches further comprising:
[generating a communication message to transmit from the parent job to the child job];
wrapping the communication message in an envelope message containing information about source compute service manager, destination compute service manager, source job, and destination job (“...In some embodiments, anonymized strings (e.g., tokens) are stored in respective data fields (or variable types, e.g., full name, mobile number, etc.) without associating the anonymized strings with respective user accounts...” para. 0059) and (“device information 354 including, but not limited to, user device type, user device MAC address, user device identifier. In some embodiments, one or more data items in device information 354 (e.g., MAC addresses) are anonymized strings” para. 0060); and
transmitting the wrapped communication message using a remote procedure call (“...In some embodiments, the request may be directed to a corresponding third party server 150 and routed through the remote server 140...” figure 1 and para. 0077).
Livneh does not but Pitio teaches
generating a communication message to transmit from the parent job to the child job (“...transmitting, from an instructor device to an intermediary device, a parent request for execution of at least one parent data process executable by at least one computing resource, the parent request for routing as at least one child request by the intermediary device for execution by at least one destination...” para. 0015).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 1, Livneh teaches wherein the [child] job token includes a unique ID, a parent job ID, a token creation time, and a time-to-live value (“...a token generator 460 (e.g., a pseudo-random-number generator) for generating a token (e.g., a pseudo-random number) to be assigned to each user account...” para. 0073).
Livneh does not but Pitio teaches the child job (“...transmitting, from an instructor device to an intermediary device, a parent request for execution of at least one parent data process executable by at least one computing resource, the parent request for routing as at least one child request by the intermediary device for execution by at least one destination...” para. 0015).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 1, Livneh teaches wherein the response message includes a [child] job ID and a compute service manager ID (“...a request-and-response processing module 480 for processing requests and responses received from the user device 102 and/or a web server (e.g., the remote server 140 or a third-party server 150), including, but not limited to, replacing the PII with anonymized data and/or vice versa...” para. 0075).
Livneh does not but Pitio teaches the child job (“...transmitting, from an instructor device to an intermediary device, a parent request for execution of at least one parent data process executable by at least one computing resource, the parent request for routing as at least one child request by the intermediary device for execution by at least one destination...” para. 0015).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 9, this is a machine-storage medium claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. Further, Livneh teaches a machine-storage medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine (“...the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors. The one or more programs include instructions for performing the operations of the above method. In accordance with some embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the electronic device...” para. 0006).
As to claim 10 - 15, these claims recite similar scope of claims 2 – 7. See rejection for claims 2 – 7 above.
As to claim 17, this is a system of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. Further, Livneh teaches at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor (“...an electronic device (e.g., a proxy server) may include one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs; the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors. The one or more programs include instructions for performing the operations of the above method. In accordance with some embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the electronic device...” para. 0006).
As to claim 18 - 23, these claims recite similar scope of claims 2 – 7. See rejection for claims 2 – 7 above.
Claims 8, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh in view of Pitio, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 and further in view of Reddy A V et al., (US PUB 2020/0409800 hereinafter Reddy).
As to claim 8, Livneh modified by Pitio teaches The method of claim 1, Livneh and Pitio do not but Reddy A V teaches further comprising:
transmitting an abort message to the child job in response to the parent job being aborted (“In operation 610, the parent ISR 315 can query the intermediate child ISR to fetch the details of all child ISRs spawned to save the state of the restore session in response to receiving the unexpected abort event” para. 0080).
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 Livneh and Pitio by applying the teachings of Reddy A V because Reddy A V would provide abort event to child job to save information to prevent lost due to unexpected abort (para. 0080).
As to claims 16 and 24, these claims recite similar scope of claim 8. See rejection for claims 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chen, (US PUB 2017/0193127), discloses a method for fast data fetching and rendering, wherein nested query for retrieving all the data to be rendered for the page is constructed upon receiving a page display request (title, abstract and figures 1 – 14).
Tamjidi, (US PUB 2019/0340287), discloses data center hosting a representational state transfer (REST) server in communication with a client network, wherein the REST server includes a GraphQL framework that enables the generation of rich and complex queries, including multi-step queries (e.g., nested queries, dependent queries, and/or recursive queries), within a single REST request (title, abstract and figures 1 – 12).
Feng, (US PUB 2009/0178105), discloses a method for communicating between proxy server and backend directory server to process client request (title, abstract and figures 1 – 5).
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