DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-- claim 2 wherein -- should be -- claim 2, wherein -- in claims 3-4, 10-11
-- IOPS -- is abbreviation without providing full form in claims 6, 13 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- inTel -- appears to be misspelled in page 15 paragraph [0003] line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figure -- 3A-3C -- are not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “asymmetric hardware” without clearly reciting what constitutes the asymmetric hardware or which hardware are considered asymmetric.
Claim 1 recites “base nodes” and “analytical nodes” without clearly reciting what are these nodes are consisting of.
Claim 1 recites “propagate the database write operations” and later recites “replicate the database write operations”. It is unclear if propagating and replicating the write operations are same or different.
Claim 6 recites “first class and a second class” without clearly reciting class is referring to what.
Claims 8 and 15 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (US 2017/0344618 A1, hereafter Horowitz) in view of Byrne et al. (US 2016/0285962 A1, hereafter Byrne).
As per claim 1, Horowitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a cloud database system for hosting data using asymmetric hardware ([0522] computer system, having different architectures or components, special/ general purpose [0525] specialized hardware) for analytics nodes ([0009] cloud hosted database service [0108] analytic data, stored in separate database, fir. 4 414), the system comprising:
at least one cloud-based resource, the at least one cloud-based resource including a processor and a memory ([0073] cloud resources 116-122, number of nodes cloud computing resources, assigned/used, execute respective nodes [0009] cloud based resources having memory and processor);
a database subsystem executing on the at least one cloud-based resource ([0009] configure a database subsystem on the cloud based resource), wherein the database subsystem comprises ([0009] database system comprises):
a replica set configured to store data ([0009] replica set, node hosting database instance ), the replica set including a plurality of base nodes comprising ([0009] replica set comprising primary node, and at least two second nodes ):
a primary node configured to ([0009] primary node):
accept, from client systems, database write operations ([0009] accepts database write operations from client system); and
responsive to accepting the database write operations, propagate the database write operations to secondary nodes ([0009] primary database instance that accepts database write operations from client systems,
and at least two secondary nodes that host copies of the primary database instance that replicate logged operations from the primary node);
two secondary nodes each configured to ([0009] two secondary nodes):
responsive to receiving the database write operations from the primary node, replicate the database write operations ([0009] write operations from client systems, and at least two secondary nodes, replicate logged operations from the primary node); and
accept, from client systems, database read operations ([0009] database subsystem, accept, write and read commands from client system);
wherein the replica set is configured to accept specification ([0009] processor configured to accept user specification of configuration, provision cloud based resources) of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations, the at least one analytics node having asymmetric hardware respective to the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes ([0011] database subsystem instance associated with respective primary and secondary databased nodes of the distributed database [0522] computer system, having different architectures or components, special/ general purpose [0525] specialized hardware [0290] cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, define memory, storage, and IOPS specification for each data bearing server, user, customize the servers).
Horowitz doesn’t specifically teach analytic nodes; specification of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations, the at least one analytics node having asymmetric hardware.
Byrne, however, teaches analytic nodes ([0006] analytics node ); wherein the replica set is configured to accept specification of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations ([0039] receive code, message, or instructions to perform an analytic function [0006] analytics node, performs first portion of the overall analysis [0022] analytics, data analysis, analytic function is a computation performed in the course of an analysis of supplied data and/or conclusions), the at least one analytics node having asymmetric hardware ([0095] fig. 5 analytics nodes/systems, distributed processing environment [0078] hardware, vary depending on the implementation, other hardware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Horowitz with the teachings of Byrne of analytic node implemented with varying hardware performing analytic function based on received code/message/instructions to improve efficiency and allow analytic nodes performing analytic function based on specification of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations, the at least one analytics node having asymmetric hardware to the method of Horowitz as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of performing analytic function according to the received message to the known method of distributed database management having data analytic capabilities to yield predictable result/system and is motivated by improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Horowitz teaches wherein at least one analytics node has a first instance size and the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes have a second instance size different than the first instance size ([0009] provision cloud based resources , primary node, secondary nodes, database instance [0506] different instance sizes [0507] custom size [0290] user, configure user’s cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, define memory, storage, and IOPS specification for each data bearing server, user, customize the servers).
Byrne teaches remaining claim elements of analytics node ([0006] analytics node).
As per claim 3, Horowitz teaches wherein the first instance size is larger than the second instance size ([0009] provision cloud based resources, primary node, secondary nodes, database instance [0506] different instance sizes [0507] custom size [0290] user, configure user’s cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, user, customize the servers).
As per claim 4, Horowitz teaches wherein the first instance size is smaller than the second instance size ([0009] provision cloud based resources [0506] different instance sizes [0507] custom size [0290] user, configure user’s cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, define memory, storage, and IOPS specification for each data bearing server, user, customize the servers; custom storage speed: IOPS the system can perform).
As per claim 5, Horowitz teaches wherein the database system is configured to receive input from a customer customizing the first instance size to be different than the second instance size ( [0007] create user distributed databases hosted in cloud, enables fine grain user selections specifying various degree of implementation details for database configurations e.g. number of nodes, user, fine tune turnkey default selections, tailorable open system [0009] accept user specification of configuration for a distributed database, provision cloud based resources [0506] different instance sizes [0507] storage capacity, user, use the instance default or a custom size [0290] user, configure user’s cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, define memory, storage, and IOPS specification for each data bearing server, user, customize the servers; custom storage speed: IOPS the system can perform).
As per claim 6, Horowitz teaches wherein the input indicates at least one of ([0009] accept user specification of configuration for a distributed database, provision cloud based resources ):
(a) a first cluster tier and a second cluster tier different than the first cluster tier ([0515] multi-tier system [0078] free tier database e.g. primary and two secondary node architecture, database cluster);
(b) a first class and a second class different than the first class ([0172] node types, primary and secondary nodes, node arbiter [0509] instance type, standard, Fast, Fastest);
(c) first cluster-tier auto-scaling and second cluster-tier auto-scaling different than the first cluster-tier auto-scaling ([0085] cluster, replica set, scaling e.g. increase nodes in replica set [0257] auto-scale operations [0322] scale an existing cluster ); or
(d) a first IOPS and a second IOPS different than the first IOPS ([0509] instance type, changes, IOPS [0023] IOPS per database instance).
As per claim 7, Horowitz teaches wherein the database system is further configured to receive additional input from the customer specifying a symmetric IOPS for the at least one analytics node and the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes (0009] accept user specification of configuration for a distributed database, provision cloud based resources, primary node, secondary nodes, IOPS per database instance or user [0290] user, configure user’s cluster, atlas, configuration options, Instance size, define memory, storage, and IOPS specification for each data bearing server, user, customize the servers; custom storage speed: IOPS the system can perform).
Byrne teaches remaining claim elements of analytic node ([0006] analytics node).
Claim 8 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 9 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 10 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 11 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 12 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 13 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 14 recites a computer implemented method for elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 15 recites at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for elements for claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for elements for claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for elements for claims 2 and 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for elements for claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for elements for claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195