DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 04/21/2022.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-11 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. Claims 1, 5, 9 have been canceled and new claims 12-13 have been added by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- the first and second -- should be -- the first and the second -- in claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 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 12 recites “the first and second completion indications” and “the first and second processing nodes”, and “the first and second portions”. It is not definite that the second completion of indications and second node as recited are same as described earlier in the claims. Applicant is requested to recite “the first … and the second if these are referring to earlier claimed elements.
Independent claim 13 recites similar elements and have similar deficiencies. Dependent Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claim.
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 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 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 or integrating into practical application.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 12 is directed to “generating signal for completion of batch processing up on completion indication of processing of batch jobs upon receiving end-of-batch indication form one or more batches of data being processed by one or more nodes” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 12-13 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 10 recites a controller comprising network interface device communicatively coupled to processing nodes, which falls within machine / manufacture category statutory subject matter category. Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which also doesn’t fall within the four statutory subject matter category. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i.
A method for batch processing in a distributed information technology system comprising a plurality of interconnected processing nodes and a controller communicatively coupled to the processing nodes, the method comprising, at the controller:
computing environment, intended use, common computing (background [0003]; cited prior art-pTO-892
ii.
appending, to a first portion of a batch of initial data allocated to a first processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a first end-of-batch indication, the first end-of- batch indication configured to cause the first processing node to generate a first completion indication;
adding information to data, extra solution activity
iii.
appending, to a second portion of the batch of initial data allocated to a second processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a second end-of-batch indication, the second end-of-batch indication configured to cause the second processing node to generate a second completion indication;
adding information to data, extra solution activity
iv.
receiving the first completion indication from the first processing node, and the second completion indicator from the second processing node, the first and second completion indications indicating that the first and second processing nodes have completed processing the first and second portions of the batch of initial data, resulting in a batch of intermediate data;
information gathering, common computing output
v.
in response to receiving the first and second completion indications, (i) appending a third end-of-batch indication to a first portion of the batch of intermediate data allocated to a third processing node, and (ii) appending a fourth end-of-batch indication to a second portion of the batch of intermediate data allocated to a fourth processing node, the third and fourth end-of-batch indications configured to cause the third and fourth processing nodes to generate respective third and fourth completion indicators;
abstract idea of mental process
vi.
receiving the third completion indication from the third processing node, and the fourth completion indications from the fourth processing node, the third and fourth completion indications indicating that the third and fourth processing nodes have completed processing the first and second portions of the batch of intermediate data, resulting in a batch of final data;
information gathering, common processing output
vii.
in response to receiving the third and fourth completion indicators, generating a control signal indicating that the batch of initial data has been completely processed.
abstract idea of mental process; common computing method
Claims 12 in steps [v] and [vii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus, claim 12 recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” . For example, claim 12 in step [v] recites “in response to receiving the first and second completion indications, (i) appending a third end-of-batch indication to a first portion of the batch of intermediate data allocated to a third processing node, and (ii) appending a fourth end-of-batch indication to a second portion of the batch of intermediate data allocated to a fourth processing node, the third and fourth end-of-batch indications configured to cause the third and fourth processing nodes to generate respective third and fourth completion indicators”, which is directed to performing an action (e.g. appending information to the data) in response to another event/trigger/activity (e.g. in response to receiving … indicators) and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Similarly, claim 12 step [vii] recites “in response to receiving the third and fourth completion indicators, generating a control signal indicating that the batch of initial data has been completely processed”, which is a combination of one or more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, claim 12 step [v] and [vii] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claims 12 recites a judicial exception.
Based on similar analysis /rationales, claims 13, 10, and 11 also recites judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 10-13 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 12 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also is considered additional limitations in steps [i]-[iv] and [v] for consideration under Prong Two. As indicated above in the chart above, claim 12 step [i] recites method implemented on a distributed information technology. Applying the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use cannot make the abstract idea patent eligible. Claim 12 step [i] also recites “controller” which could be a generic processor and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 12 in steps [ii]-[iii] recite “appending, to a first/second portion of the batch of initial data allocated to a first/second processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a first/second end-of-batch indication, the first/second end-of-batch indication configured to cause the second processing node to generate a second completion indication”, which is directed to adding more data /information to the batch of data at a high level of generality and is neither an inventive concepts not nor provide improvement to the technology and/or technical field. Claim 12 in step [iv] recites “receiving the first completion indication from the first processing node, and the second completion indicator from the second processing node, the first and second completion indications indicating that the first and second processing nodes have completed processing the first and second portions of the batch of initial data, resulting in a batch of intermediate data”, which is directed to information gathering at high level of generality. Gathered data indicates processing completion and generation of output data. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 12 step [vi] also recites similar elements as step [iv] and is directed to information gathering. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 12 from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional claim elements recited in claim 12, under broadest reasonable interpretation, either considered alone or whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 12 recite a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. Based on similar analysis /rationales, claims 13, 10, and 11 also recites judicial exceptions without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Because claim 12 is directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether the claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
In addition to the limitations of claim 12 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 12 recites additional elements As indicated above in the chart, and under Prong TWO. Claim 12 step [i] recites “method implemented in a distributed information technology”. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 I A. Claim 12 step [ii] recites “controller” which could be a generic processor and therefore do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 I A. Claim 12 in steps [ii]-[iii] recite “appending, to a first/second portion of the batch of initial data allocated to a first/second processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a first/second end-of-batch indication, the first/second end-of-batch indication configured to cause the second processing node to generate a second completion indication”, which is directed to adding more data /information to the batch of data at a high level of generality and do not amount to significantly more, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Claim 12 steps [iv]/[vi] are recites “receiving the first/second completion indication from the first /second processing node” and further describes the received information. Receiving information is directed to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution activity See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 12 from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in claim 12, under broadest reasonable interpretation, either alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. It has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”). Thus, claim 12 do not recite additional claim elements in such a manner to amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or amount significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the distributed information technology system comprises at least one of a micro-service event-driven system, a service-oriented system, a webservice system, which is directed to standard technological environment/methods and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology or technical fields.
Claim 3 describes the end-of-batch indication comprising elements like batch identification, a processing node identification, an identification of an interface interconnecting two processing nodes, and do not impose limitations in such a manner to make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Claim 4 is directed to storing portions of data and is commonly known to one of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 6 recites “ wherein the control signal comprises one or more of an indication to an administrator, a command to initiate a further batch processing iteration, a command to deactivate at least a number of the plurality of processing nodes”, which is directed to commands for processing information, at high level of generality. Therefore, these are neither inventive nor amount to significant more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the batch of initial data, the batch of intermediate data and the batch of final data each comprise messages” and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more because messages are merely data.
Claim 8 recites “storing a process state log in a memory of the controller, the process state log indicating a completion status corresponding to each of the plurality of processing nodes; in response to receiving the first completion indication, updating the process state log to indicate that the first processing node as has completed processing the first portion of the batch of initial data”. Storing state log is ordinary computing process, and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more. Updating the state upon receiving the completion indication, is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and is therefore resembles the idea of mental process abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or amount significantly more.
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 2-4, 6-8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadhurst et al. (US 2018/0217882 A1, hereafter Broadhurst) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2009/0024997 A1, hereafter Kobayashi), and further in view of Powers et al. (US 2006/0075408 A1, hereafter Powers), and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2006/0056413 A1, hereafter Ikeda).
Broadhurst and Ikeda were cited in the IDS filed on 09/05/2023.
As per claim 12, Broadhurst teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for batch processing in a distributed information technology system comprising a plurality of interconnected processing nodes and a controller communicatively coupled to the processing nodes ([0001] batch processing of messages in processing environment, [0014] collection of distributed devise, execute one or more methods [0015] distributor), the method comprising, at the controller ([0015] distributor, producing and sending the batch of messages to consumer [0016] consumer, processing the message [0017] distributor and the consumer, connected by messaging system e.g. cloud-based messaging system):
a first portion of a batch of initial data allocated to a first processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a first end-of-batch indication ([0022] message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120), the first end-of- batch indication configured to cause the first processing node to generate a first completion indication ([0022] message batch, partition, log, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication; when an processing engine completes processing of a message assigned to the partition; modifying the stored offset value associated with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. indication of completion of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120);
a second portion of the batch of initial data allocated to a second processing node of the plurality of processing nodes, a second end-of-batch indication ([0022] message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120), the second end-of-batch indication configured to cause the second processing node to generate a second completion indication ( [0022] message batch, partition, log, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication; when an processing engine completes processing of a message assigned to the partition; modifying the stored offset value associated with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. indication of completion of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120);
receiving the first completion indication from the first processing node ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer); and the second completion indicator from the second processing node ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer), the first and second completion indications indicating that the first and second processing nodes have completed processing the first and second portions of the batch of initial data ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer);
in response to receiving the first and second completion indications ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer), (i) a third end-of-batch indication to a first portion of the batch of data allocated to a third processing node ( i.e. same as first/second portion [0022] message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120), and (ii) a fourth end-of-batch indication to a second portion of the batch of data allocated to a fourth processing node (i.e. same as first/second portion [0022] message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0061] snapshot of the offsets of each partition [0063] the high watermark is the highest offset value of each partition, associated with the message batch, which must be reached in order to have processed all of the messages of the message batch; fig. 3 120), the third and fourth end-of-batch indications configured to cause the third and fourth processing nodes to generate respective third and fourth completion indicators ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer);
receiving the third completion indication from the third processing node, and the fourth completion indications from the fourth processing node (i.e. same as first/second node except data is now intermediate data [0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer), the third and fourth completion indications indicating that the third and fourth processing nodes have completed processing the first and second portions of the batch of data, resulting in a batch of final data ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer);
in response to receiving the third and fourth completion indicators ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer), the batch of initial data has been completely processed ([0071] determine when each consumer has completed the processing of all of the messages in the message batch; [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer).
Broadhurst doesn’t specifically teach appending, to a portion of data, end-of-batch indication; processing the batch of initial data resulting in one or more batches of intermediate data; processing intermediate data; generating a control signal indicating that processing has been completed.
Kobayashi, however, teaches processing the batch of initial data resulting in one or more batches of intermediate data ([0086] batch processing, produces, process flow. Creating, contents of intermediate data);
processing intermediate data ([0099] output data, not only contains final output data but also contains the intermediate data, created in operation, used as the input for another operation processor).
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 Broadhurst with the teachings of Kobayashi of producing intermediate data created in operation used as input for another operation during batch processing to improve efficiency and allow processing the batch of initial data resulting in one or more batches of intermediate data; processing intermediate data to the method of Broadhurst as in the instant invention. The combination of analogous arts would have been obvious because applying the intermediate data processing taught by Kobayashi to the method of Broadhurst to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
Broadhurst and Kobayashi, in combination, do not specifically teach appending, to a portion of data, an end-of-batch indication; generating a control signal indicating that processing has been completed.
Powers, however, teaches generating a control signal indicating that processing has been completed ([0040] control server, notifies, that all of the work units, job, complete [0110] batch job).
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 Broadhurst and Kobayashi with the teachings of Powers of control server notifying that all of the work units of the batch job are complete to improve efficiency and allow generating a control signal indicating that processing has been completed to the method of Broadhurst and Kobayashi as in the instant invention. The combination of analogous arts would have been obvious because applying the notifying user by control server upon completion of jobs taught by Powers to the method of Broadhurst and Kobayashi to yield expected result and improved efficiency and usability.
Broadhurst, Kobayashi and Powers, in combination, do not specifically teach appending, to a portion of data, an end-of-batch indication.
Ikeda, however, teaches appending, to a portion of data, an end-of-batch indication ([0009] stream of plurality of messages, message data, header, streamed, end of batch token, signaling the end of stream of the plurality of message [0010] [0035] EndOfBatch [0036]).
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 Broadhurst, Kobayashi and Powers with the teachings of Ikeda of end of batch token signaling that no further message data follows within the message header associated with the message stream to improve efficiency and allow appending, to a portion of data, an end-of-batch indication to the method of Broadhurst, Kobayashi and Powers as in the instant invention.
The combination of analogous arts would have been obvious because applying the known method of inserting end of batch token in the message header to indicate that no further message data follows taught by Ikeda to the method of Broadhurst, Kobayashi, and Ikeda to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Broadhurst teaches wherein the distributed information technology system comprises at least one of a micro-service event-driven system, a service-oriented system, a webservice system ([0032] cloud computing service delivery, access to services [0040] SaaS [0041] PaaS [0042] IaaS [0048] cloud computing environment is service oriented).
As per claim 3, Broadhurst teaches wherein the first and second end-of-batch indications and the completion indications include at least one of a batch identification, a processing node identification, an identification of an interface interconnecting two processing nodes ([0022] message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, for each partition, storing an offset value i.e. end of batch indication, each partition associated with the processing engine [0023] snapshot, current offset values, associated with each partition of the log [0071] determine when each consumer has completed the processing of all of the messages in the message batch).
Powers teaches remaining claim elements of indications include at least one of a batch identification ([0080] work unit ID, job ID [0134] message communicated between control server and agents), a processing node identification ([0076] computing resource ID, set of pool ID [0134] message communicated between control server and agents), an identification of an interface interconnecting two processing nodes ( [0069] MPI, p2p communications [0076] set of attributes, computing resource, computing resource ID ).
As per claim 4, Broadhurst teaches wherein the first portion of the batch of initial data is stored in a first partition corresponding to the first processing nodes ([0022] for each message of the message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, wherein each partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine), and wherein the second portion of the batch of initial data is stored in a second partition corresponding to the second processing node ([0022] for each message of the message batch, assigning the message to a partition of a log, wherein each partition of the log is associated with a respective processing engine).
As per claim 6, Broadhurst teaches wherein the control signal comprises one or more of an indication to an administrator ([0053] administrator), a command to initiate a further batch processing iteration (fig. 4 messages batch not processed 230 [0081] return to step 210 ), a command to deactivate at least a number of the plurality of processing nodes.
Powers teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the control signal comprises one or more of an indication to an administrator a command to deactivate at least a number of the plurality of processing nodes ([0008] administrative interface, administrator, configure the system including managing assignment of compute nodes to one or more resource pools [0035] control server 105 administrative controls 107 administration function, computing resource management functions ).
As per claim 7, Broadhurst teaches wherein the batch of initial data, the batch of intermediate data and the batch of final data are messages ([0015] producing /sending the batch of messages to the consumer [0016] consumer, processing batch message [0071] determine when each consumer has completed the processing of all of the messages in the message batch).
Kobayashi teaches remaining claim elements of intermediate data ([0099] intermediate data).
As per claim 8, Broadhurst teaches at the controller:
storing a process state log in a memory of the controller, the process state log indicating a completion status corresponding to each of the plurality of processing nodes ([0022] message, message batch, message partition, processing engine, storing an offset value, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer );
in response to receiving the first completion indication, updating the process state log to indicate that the first processing node has completed processing the first portion of the batch of initial data ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition associated with the processing engine i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication of the batch assigned to the processing engine [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed [0057] offset value, stored, for each partition by the consumer in the consumer).
Claim 10 recites a controller comprising: a network interface device communicatively coupled to processing nodes of a distributed information technology system, and a processor configured to perform (Broadhurst: [0015] distributor computer [0085] fig. 8) the method of claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, implements the method of claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites method for batch processing in a distributed processing system for some of the elements of claim 12 and don’t include intermediate processing. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
The previous objections under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn.
The previous objections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, some new objections are made in reference to the amended claims.
The previous objections under 35 USC 101 regarding non-statutory subject matter have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Long et al. (US 7,787,497 B1) teaches system for grouping attributes in packets in RADIUS protocol including beginning /end group identifiers inserted into a packet.
Kawano et al. (US 2009/0254913 A1) teaches information processing system for processing jobs block by block of plurality of group of jobs including the requested completion flag/field.
Banerjee et al. (US 2014/0280766 A1) teaches method and system for event state management in stream processing.
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