Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 29, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 2, 20 24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 9, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 12, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 11, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 6, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 4, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 22, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 6, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
It is the position of the Examiner that Independent Claims 1, 13, and 17, being directed to a technological solution to a technological problem of data pipeline access by downstream users, is not directed to an abstract idea without 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile (PG Pub. No. 2023/0040834 A1), and further in view of Achar (PG Pub. No. 2023/0297770 A1) and Randerath (PG Pub. No. 2014/0156570 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Achar discloses a method for managing operation of a data pipeline, the method comprising:
obtaining a request for data managed by the data pipeline (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile does not disclose:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager;
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data;
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Achar discloses:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager (see Achar, Claim 7, determine one or more cells in the plurality of cells that have the missing entry); and
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data (see Achar, Claim 7, for each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry, perform … calculating a new data value for each cell based, at least in part, on the three components, the left data value, the right data value, and the mean value obtained for the respective cell using a predefined formula; and substitute each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry with the new data value calculated for the respective cell to obtain an updated table);
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Haile in view of Achar does not disclose:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold);
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold); and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0073], where optimization algorithm S14 is carried out until a termination criterion is reached; as a termination criterion, at S15 it can be provided for example that the parameter of the parameter set generated by optimization and the determined interpolation function have reached a stable value which for example no longer changes the value thereof; it would also be conceivable for a calculated error to fall under a certain predetermined value): providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile, Achar, and Randerath are all directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile and Achar with Randerath as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 2, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein obtaining the request comprises:
receiving a message from a downstream consumer, the message indicating the request, wherein the downstream consumer uses data sourced from one or more data sources of the data pipeline, wherein the request indicating a time sensitive need for the data by the downstream consumer, wherein the one or more data sources being operably connected via a communication channel to the data manager (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Regarding Claim 6, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein obtaining the inference comprises:
Haile does not disclose generating, using an inference model trained to predict the data based on another parameter, the inference. Achar discloses generating, using an inference model trained to predict the data based on another parameter, the inference (see Achar, paragraph [0016], where to handle missing data in time-series, researchers working in the field of time-series prediction under missing data have come up with a variety of techniques including RNN based techniques; see also paragraph [0017], where the systems and the methods of the present disclosure follow a joint impute and learn technique (also referred as GRU-DE) that factors closest left and right observations in addition to mean for deciding the most appropriate input for the missing data).
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 6, wherein:
Haile does not disclose wherein the parameter is one selected from a list of parameters consisting of: a point in time, and a portion of other data stored by the data manager. Achar discloses wherein the parameter is one selected from a list of parameters consisting of: a point in time, and a portion of other data stored by the data manager (see Achar, paragraph [0016], where to handle missing data in time-series, researchers working in the field of time-series prediction under missing data have come up with a variety of techniques including RNN based techniques; see also paragraph [0017], where the systems and the methods of the present disclosure follow a joint impute and learn technique (also referred as GRU-DE) that factors closest left and right observations in addition to mean for deciding the most appropriate input for the missing data).
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 8, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein:
Haile does not disclose the inference model is based on historic data from the data pipeline, the historic data defining a relationship between the data and the other parameter. Achar discloses the inference model is based on historic data from the data pipeline, the historic data defining a relationship between the data and the other parameter (see Achar, paragraph [0016], where to handle missing data in time-series, researchers working in the field of time-series prediction under missing data have come up with a variety of techniques including RNN based techniques; see also paragraph [0017], where the systems and the methods of the present disclosure follow a joint impute and learn technique (also referred as GRU-DE) that factors closest left and right observations in addition to mean for deciding the most appropriate input for the missing data).
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 9, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein obtaining the uncertainty quantification comprises:
Haile does not disclose generating the uncertainty quantification using the inference model, the uncertainty quantification indicating a likelihood that the inference successfully predicts the data. Randerath discloses generating the uncertainty quantification using the inference model, the uncertainty quantification indicating a likelihood that the inference successfully predicts the data (see Randerath, paragraph [0043], where the deviation values of the future data regarding the iterations are added together, this provides an estimated prediction error; in this way, in addition to a trend prediction for future data points, a probability of these future calculated data points having been correctly calculated can be provided).
Haile and Randerath are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Randerath as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 10, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein making the second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria comprises:
Haile does not disclose making a comparison between the uncertainty quantification and the criteria, the criteria being a minimum acceptable level of certainty for the inference, wherein the criteria being defined by the requestor. Randerath discloses making a comparison between the uncertainty quantification and the criteria, the criteria being a minimum acceptable level of certainty for the inference (see Randerath, paragraph [0073], where optimization algorithm S14 is carried out until a termination criterion is reached; as a termination criterion, at S15 it can be provided for example that the parameter of the parameter set generated by optimization and the determined interpolation function have reached a stable value which for example no longer changes the value thereof; it would also be conceivable for a calculated error to fall under a certain predetermined value), wherein the criteria being defined by the requestor (see Randerath, paragraph [0058], where various parameters which can have an influence on the generation of the decision tree can be used; the parameters are typically determined by the user).
Haile and Randerath are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Randerath as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 12, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising in a second instance of the first determination where the data is available via the data manager: providing the data to the requestor to service the request (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Regarding Claim 13, Haile discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a data pipeline, the operations comprising:
obtaining a request for data managed by the data pipeline (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile does not disclose:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager;
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data;
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Achar discloses:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager (see Achar, Claim 7, determine one or more cells in the plurality of cells that have the missing entry); and
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data (see Achar, Claim 7, for each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry, perform … calculating a new data value for each cell based, at least in part, on the three components, the left data value, the right data value, and the mean value obtained for the respective cell using a predefined formula; and substitute each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry with the new data value calculated for the respective cell to obtain an updated table);
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Haile in view of Achar does not disclose:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold);
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold); and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0073], where optimization algorithm S14 is carried out until a termination criterion is reached; as a termination criterion, at S15 it can be provided for example that the parameter of the parameter set generated by optimization and the determined interpolation function have reached a stable value which for example no longer changes the value thereof; it would also be conceivable for a calculated error to fall under a certain predetermined value): providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile, Achar, and Randerath are all directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile and Achar with Randerath as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 13, wherein obtaining the request comprises:
receiving a message from a downstream consumer, the message indicating the request, wherein the downstream consumer uses data sourced from one or more data sources of the data pipeline, wherein the request indicating a time sensitive need for the data by the downstream consumer, wherein the one or more data sources being operably connected via a communication channel to the data manager (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Regarding Claim 17, Haile discloses a data processing system, comprising:
a processor (see Haile, paragraph [0026], where data pipeline system 111, data target 121, monitoring system 131, cloud computing services 141, comprise microprocessors); and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor (see Haile, paragraph [0026], where data pipeline system 111, data target 121, monitoring system 131, cloud computing services 141, comprise microprocessors … the memories comprise Random Access Memory (RAM)), cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a data pipeline, the operations comprising:
obtaining a request for data managed by the data pipeline (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile does not disclose:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager;
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data;
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Achar discloses:
making a first determination regarding whether the data is available via a data manager (see Achar, Claim 7, determine one or more cells in the plurality of cells that have the missing entry); and
in a first instance of the first determination where the data is not available via the data manager: obtaining an inference for the data (see Achar, Claim 7, for each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry, perform … calculating a new data value for each cell based, at least in part, on the three components, the left data value, the right data value, and the mean value obtained for the respective cell using a predefined formula; and substitute each cell of the one or more cells that has the missing entry with the new data value calculated for the respective cell to obtain an updated table);
Haile and Achar are both directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Achar as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Haile in view of Achar does not disclose:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference;
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria; and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria: providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data.
Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses:
obtaining an uncertainty quantification for the inference (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold);
making a second determination regarding whether the uncertainty quantification meets a criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold); and.
in a first instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification meets the criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0073], where optimization algorithm S14 is carried out until a termination criterion is reached; as a termination criterion, at S15 it can be provided for example that the parameter of the parameter set generated by optimization and the determined interpolation function have reached a stable value which for example no longer changes the value thereof; it would also be conceivable for a calculated error to fall under a certain predetermined value): providing the inference to a requestor to service the request for the data (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Haile, Achar, and Randerath are all directed to time series data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile and Achar with Randerath as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 18, Haile in view of Achar and Randerath discloses the data processing system of Claim 17, wherein obtaining the request comprises:
receiving a message from a downstream consumer, the message indicating the request, wherein the downstream consumer uses data sourced from one or more data sources of the data pipeline, wherein the request indicating a time sensitive need for the data by the downstream consumer, wherein the one or more data sources being operably connected via a communication channel to the data manager (see Haile, paragraph [0052], where database 421 receives pipeline outputs 415 as output data and stores the output data in storage device 422 as data sets 423-425; database 421 receives a user request to analyze one of sets 423-425; the user request indicates a processing urgency for the selected one of sets 423-425).
Claims 3-5, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile, Achar, and Randeranth as applied to Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Koishigawa (“HTPP Error 503 Service Unavailable Explained – What the 503 Error Code Means”, HTTP Error 503 Service Unavailable Explained – What the 503 Error Code Means, October 2, 2020).
Regarding Claim 3, Haile in view of Achar and Randeranth discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein:
Haile does not disclose the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated. Koishigawa discloses the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Haile in view of Achar, Randeranth, and Koishigawa discloses the method of Claim 3, wherein making the first determination comprises:
Haile does not disclose performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager. Koishigawa discloses performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 5, Haile in view of Achar, Randeranth, and Koishigawa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein:
Haile does not disclose when the data is not available via the data manager, a disruption to the communication channel occurred or an incapability between the application programming interface and another entity has arisen. Koishigawa discloses when the data is not available via the data manager, a disruption to the communication channel occurred or an incapability between the application programming interface and another entity has arisen (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 11, Haile in view of Achar and Randeranth discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Haile does not disclose:
in a second instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification does not meet the criteria: issuing a denial for availability to the data to the requestor to service the request, the denial indicating the data responsive to the request is not available.
Haile in view of Randeranth and Koishigawa discloses in a second instance of the second determination where the uncertainty quantification does not meet the criteria (see Randerath, paragraph [0028], where if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, the calculation is terminated; additionally or alternatively, it would be conceivable for the termination criterion to then be set if an error determined during calculation of a subsequent data point exceeds a predetermined threshold, or in other words, if the certainty determined during iterative calculation of a subsequent data point falls below a critical threshold): issuing a denial for availability to the data to the requestor to service the request, the denial indicating the data responsive to the request is not available (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to accessing data. Randeranth is directed to substituting estimated data within a threshold error level when actual data is unavailable. Koishigawa discloses notifying the user of errors when attempting to access unavailable data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the estimated data substitution when the data is below a threshold error level function of Randeranth with the data unavailable error notification function of Koishigawa as it amounts to applying known techniques to known devices ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding Claim 15, Haile in view of Achar and Randeranth discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 14, wherein:
Haile does not disclose the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated. Koishigawa discloses the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 16, Haile in view of Achar, Randeranth, and Koishigawa discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 15, wherein making the first determination comprises:
Haile does not disclose performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager. Koishigawa discloses performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 19, Haile in view of Achar and Randeranth discloses the data processing system of Claim 18, wherein:
Haile does not disclose the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated. Koishigawa discloses the communication channel is subject to periods of temporary inoperability, and the communication channel supporting operation of an application programming interface through which the data manager is at least in part populated (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 20, Haile in view of Achar, Randeranth, and Koishigawa discloses the data processing system of Claim 19, wherein making the first determination comprises:
Haile does not disclose performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager. Koishigawa discloses performing a look up for the data, the look up returning the data when the data is available via the data manager, and the look up returning an indication that the data is not available via the data manager when the data is not available via the data manager (see Koishigawa, Section: What does the 503 error code mean?, where a 503 service unavailable error means that the page or resource is unavailable; there are many reasons why the server might return a 503 error, but some common reasons are maintenance, a bug in the server's code, or a sudden spike in traffic that causes the server to become overwhelmed).
Haile is directed to data access. Koishigawa is directed to troubleshooting data access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Haile with Koishigawa as it constitutes combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAD AGHARAHIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FARHAD AGHARAHIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights