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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: controller…to perform in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 “end-of-batch indication for a batch of initial data” and later recites “end-of-batch indication of the one or more batches of intermediate data”. It is unclear if the end-of-batch indication in the two recitation are same or different and if each batch and each intermediate data batch has unique and distinct indicator or same end-of-batch data could also indicate for more than one batch end indication.
Claim 4 recites “nodes are interconnected by way of partitions”. It is unclear what is partitions or what is being partitioned into partitions.
Claim 1 recites “receiving, from ….node, a completion indication ...; generating a control signal indicating that the batch processing has been completely processed”. It is unclear if the control signal is being generated upon receiving the completion indication or generation of control signal is independent of the receiving the completion indication.
Claim limitation “controller…to perform” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification describes controller functionality implemented by the internal components of the computing machine ([0057] [0058]) without clearly describing controller is a hardware or software or combination. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Remaining dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claim.
* 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 § 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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 11 recites a “computer program”, which is only software and lacks any hardware or combination of software and hardware, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. A software program without any hardware doesn’t fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and therefore rejected under 35 USC 101.
Abstract Idea Rejection
Claims 8-9 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.
Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 8-9 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 1 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. Claim 8 is directed to marking the processing nodes as having finished processing of batch data upon receiving the completion indication from the processing node, 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?
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 10 recites a controller (without any hardware), which doesn’t fall within four statutory subject matter category. Claim 11 recites a computer program (only software), 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. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
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
i
1. 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,
computing method applied to technological environment
ii
at the controller:
generic computing component
iii
providing an end-of-batch indication for a batch of initial data to be processed by at least one first processing node of the plurality of processing nodes;
transmitting information
iv
receiving, from each of the at least one first processing node, a completion indication indicating that the at least one first processing node has completed processing the batch of initial data resulting in one or more batches of intermediate data;
information gathering
v
providing an end-of-batch indication for each of the one or more hatches of intermediate data to be processed by one or more second processing nodes of the plurality of processing nodes:
transmitting information
vi
receiving, from each of the at least one second processing node, a completion indication indicating that the at least one second processing node has completed processing the batch of intermediate data resulting in a batch of final data;
information gathering
vii
generating a control signal indicating that the batch processing has been completely processed.
generic computing, information transmission
Claim
i
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising, at the controller:
generic computing
ii
in response to receiving the completion indication from one of the at least one processing nodes, marking the one of the at least one processing nodes as having completed processing the batch of initial data.
mental process abstract idea
i
9. The method of claim 1. further comprising. at the controller:
generic computing
ii
monitoring batch processing progress through the distributed information technology system based on the received completion indications.
mental process abstract idea
Claims 8-9 describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus, claims 8-9 recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, claim 8 step [ii] recites “in response to receiving the completion indication from one of the at least one processing nodes, marking the one of the at least one processing nodes as having completed processing the batch of initial data”, which is performing an action in response to another event/trigger/activity and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Similarly, claim 9 step [ii] recites “monitoring batch processing progress through the distributed information technology system based on the received completion indications”, 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, step [ii] of claims 8-9 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 8-9 recites a judicial exception.
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 8 and 9 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 8-9 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also is considered additional limitations for consideration under Prong Two. As indicated above in the chart, claim 1 recites method implemented on a distributed information technology. Applying the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use can not make the abstract idea patent eligible. Claim 1 step [ii] recites “controller” which could be a generic processor and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 steps [iii], [v] and [vii] are directed to information transmission at high level of generality. Transmitting information is neither inventive nor provide improvements and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 steps [iv] and [vi] are directed to information gathering are considered insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, information gathering doesn’t make the abstract idea patent eligible. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 and claims 8-9 step [i] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in claim 1 or/and claims 8-9 step [i] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claims 8-9 recite a judicial exception 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 claims 8 and 9 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these 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 8-9 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also is considered additional limitations for consideration under 2B. As indicated above in the chart, and under Prong TWO, claim 1 recites method implemented on 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 1 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 1 steps [iii], [v] and [vii] are directed to information transmission at high level of generality. Transmitting information is considered by the court as well-understood, routine and conventional activity and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Claim 1 steps [iv] and [vi] are directed to information gathering are 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 1 and claims 8-9 step [i] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in claim 1 or/and claims 8-9 step [i] , 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, claims 8-9 in combination of claim 1 do not recite additional claim elements in such a manner to amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or 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 1-4, 6-11 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).
Broadhurst was cited in the IDS filed on 09/05/2023.
As per claim 1, 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 ), 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):
providing an end-of-batch indication for a batch of initial data to be processed by at least one first processing node of the plurality of processing nodes ([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);
receiving, from each of the at least one first processing node, a completion indication indicating that the at least one first processing node has completed processing the batch of initial data resulting in one or more batches of intermediate data ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication [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);
providing an end-of-batch indication for each of the one or more batches of intermediate data to be processed by one or more second processing nodes of the plurality of processing nodes ([0022] processing engine, completes processing of a message assigned to the partition, modifying the stored offset value associate with the partition i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150):
receiving, from each of the at least one second processing node, a completion indication indicating that the at least one second processing node has completed processing the batch of intermediate 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 i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0063] high watermark, highest offset value, each partition, reached, processed all of the messages of the message batch, distributor being able to determine when all of the messages of the message batch have been processed by the consumer [0064] snapshot, instant of time, exact completion point of the processing of the message batch [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);
generating a control signal indicating that the batch processing 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 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);
generating a control signal indicating that processing has been completed.
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 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.
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 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 [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 processing nodes are interconnected ([0014] collection of servers connected via a network via network such LAN by way of partitions which store the one or more batches of data ([0005] message batch, partition, processing engine).
Kobayashi teaches remaining claim elements of intermediate data for retrieval by the at least one second processing node ([0099] intermediate data, operation processing unit. Writes, those data in the predetermined storage device, reads out the data written in the external storage device if needed).
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 initial data, the intermediate data and the 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: in response to receiving the completion indication from one of the at least one processing nodes, marking the one of the at least one processing nodes as having completed processing 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 i.e. modified offset indicates completion indication [0026] high watermark of the offset of each processing engine associated with the messages; fig. 3 130 140 150 [0063] [0064] snapshot, instant of time, exact completion point of the processing of the message batch [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 ).
Powers teaches remaining claim elements of marking the one of the at least one processing node having completed processing ([0073] determine periods of distributed computing resource is idle [0078] computing resource is idle )
As per claim 9, Broadhurst teaches at the controller: monitoring batch processing progress through the distributed information technology system based on the received completion indications ([0069] allow, distributor, monitor, the consumer’s progress in the processing of message, [0075] obtaining, stored, offset values of associated with consumer, distributor assess, how many messages, consumer has processed ).
Claim 10 recites a controller communicatively coupled to processing nodes of a distributed information technology system, the controller being arranged to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites computer program with program instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, implements the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadhurst in view of Kobayashi, and further in view of Powers, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Taneja (US 2018/0227315 A1).
As per claim 5. Broadhurst teaches wherein the processing nodes are interconnected by dynamically changing paths ([0014] collection of distributed devices), wherein the method further comprises, at the controller ([0015] distributor, sending the batch of message to the consumer):
determining the paths between at least the at least one first processing node and the at least second processing node to be used for passing the at least one batch of intermediate data from the at least one first processing node to the at least one second processing node ([0015] distributor sends the batch of messages to the consumer via a messaging system [0017] distributor, consumer, connected by cloud-based messaging system).
Broadhurst, Kobayashi and Powers, in combination, do not specifically teach dynamically changing paths; determining the paths between at least the at least one first processing node and the at least second processing node to be used for passing data.
Taneja, however, teaches dynamically changing paths ([0078] dynamically determine the path between the source node and destination node), determining the paths between at least the at least one first processing node and the at least second processing node to be used for passing data ([0029] identifying a set of trusted data transmission
Paths for transmitting data from a source node to a destination node).
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 Taneja of router dynamically determining path between the source node and destination node to improve efficiency and allow determining the path dynamically between at least the at least one first processing node and the at least second processing node to be used for passing data to the method of Broadhurst, Kobayashi, and Powers as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying known method of determining path between nodes for data transmission as taught by Taneja with the teachings of Broadhurst, Kobayashi and Powers to yield predictable result with improved efficiency.
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