DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, 15 and dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-19 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figure -- 3B and 3C -- are identical.
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 § 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), and further in view of Sesek et al. (US 2002/0174209 A1, hereafter Sesek).
Horowitz and Byrne were cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 1, Horowitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a cloud database system for hosting data using asymmetric hardware for analytics nodes ([0004] cloud based service, cloud resources, distributed database instance, MongoDB [0522] computer system, having different architectures or components, special/ general purpose [0525] specialized hardware [0009] cloud hosted database service [0108] analytic data, stored in separate database, fig. 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 ([0009] replica set comprising primary node, and at least two second nodes ), the plurality of base nodes comprising:
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] write operations from client systems, and at least two secondary nodes, 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);
configured to accept user specification ([0009] processor configured to accept user specification of configuration for distributed database, configured to provision cloud based resources, install and configure a database subsystem), the at least one node is configured to have a first hardware parameter and the nodes of the plurality of nodes are configured to have a second hardware parameter different than the first hardware parameter ([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 wherein the replica set is configured to accept user specification of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations; the user specification indicating that the at least one analytics node has asymmetric hardware relative to the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes such that analytics node and the base nodes are configured to have different hardware parameter.
Byrne, however, teaches analytic nodes ([0006] analytics node ); wherein the replica set is configured to accept user specification of at least one analytics node configured to perform data analysis operations ([0039] collection of heterogeneous computing system, 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 [0017] entity, data processing environment, plurality of entity, distributed, analytic agent executes);
the at least one analytics node is configured to have a first hardware parameter and the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes are configured to have a second hardware parameter ([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 perform an analytic function identified or supplied in the received code 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.
Horowitz and Byrne, in combination, do not specifically teach the user specification indicating that the at least one analytics node has asymmetric hardware relative to the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes such that analytics node and the base nodes are configured to have different hardware parameter.
Sesek, however, teaches the user specification indicating that the at least one analytics node has asymmetric hardware relative to the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes such that analytics node and the base nodes are configured to have different hardware parameter ([0007] generates a user interface, user accessible controls, selecting, configuration settings for the primary i.e. base nodes and secondary device i.e. analytic node [0021] configuration logic for network device [0042] settings, applied, two or more primary and /or secondary network devices, single / unique configuration settings to be applied across two/more network devices [0043] settings to primary/secondary servers, those configuration settings primary/secondary server).
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 and Byrne with the teachings of Sesek of user selected unique and/or single applied to multiple device configuration settings for multiple primary and secondary network devices to improve efficiency and allow the user specification indicating that the at least one analytics node has asymmetric hardware relative to the base nodes of the plurality of base nodes such that analytics node and the base nodes are configured to have different hardware parameter to the method of Horowitz and Byrne as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying a method of receiving different user configuration settings for the different types of nodes i.e. primary/secondary as taught by Sesek to the known method of configuring asymmetrical hardware for different nodes i.e. base nodes / analytic nodes as taught by combination of Horowitz and Byrne to yield expected result of providing user interface of receiving different configuration for different type of nodes and improved usability / user experience.
As per claim 2, Horowitz teaches wherein the first hardware parameter comprises a first instance size and the second hardware parameter comprises a second instance size different that 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).
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 accepting the user specification comprises receiving 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 cluster storage class and a second storage class different than the first cluster storage 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 input/output operations per second (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 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.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
The previous objections to drawings have been withdrawn. However, some new objections have been made in view of replacement drawings filed on 05/13/226.
The previous objections under 35 USC 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaterji et al. (US 2021/0216351 A1) teaches system and methods for heterogeneous configuration optimization for distributed serve in the cloud.
Guim Bernat et al. (US 2022/0337481 A1) teaches configuration for edge computing for change based on future requirement, change on-demand by the user.
Masuda et al. (US 2013/0275975 A1) teaches resource management server for requirements received from a user.
Telang et al. (US 2022/0413932 A1) teaches multi-cloud deployment strategy based on activity workload
Waud et al. (US 2009/0198801 A1) teaches self service distribution configuration framework.
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 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
Prosecution Insights