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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on 09/10/2025/2025.
Claims 27-46 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main argument are that: the rejection is based on “impermissible hindsight” (Argument1, Remark, pages 2-5); combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran does not teach the claimed features “adjusting, at a control plane, a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type of a plurality of query types directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained from the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored” (Argument2, Remark, page 6-13.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In response to applicant's Argument1 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, it is it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhao with the teaching of Jhanb because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Jhanb would allow Zhao to “… protect intermediary networks and third party services from the impact of a heavy traffic load…” (Jhanb, par. 0001-0003.) Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Zhao and Jhanb with the teaching of Tran because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Tran would allow combination of Zhao and Jhanb to “…monitor execution of a database request based on one or more predefined rules, and to automatically take one or more predefined actions in response to detection of a violation of the one or more predefined rules” (Tran, col. 1 ln. 20-42)
In response to Applicant’s Argument2, it is noted that Zhao teaches a method, comprising (computer implemented method in a system comprising processor, wherein the processor executes instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium, par. 0006, 0048-0056): adjusting, at a control plane, a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more resource consumption at the first endpoint obtained from the first endpoint (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0032-0034, 0043, 0044, dynamically determining/adjusting requests at Pattern Discovery Module 160, including query related to rate of requests or rate of processing servers 110); and While Zhao teaches filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0024, 0031-0033, 0044, altering requests based on Pattern Discovery Module 160), Zhao does not explicitly teach one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained for the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored ; and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane as claimed. Jhanb teaches one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained for the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location (Jhanb, Fig. 1, par. 0015-0017, Device 101-103, Proxies 107-109, detection and control system 116-118 (Examiner interpreted as claimed “control plane”), and end point providing services 113-115 are separate devices (Examiner interpreted as claimed “endpoint”), i.e. “…the detection system 116 and control system 117 may be separate devices, or they may be integrated within a single detection and control system device or set of devices.”), separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored (Jhanb, Fig. 1, par. 0015-0017, Device 101-103, Proxies 107-109, detection and control system 116-118 (Examiner interpreted as claimed “control plane”), and end point providing services 113-115 are separate devices (Examiner interpreted as claimed “endpoint”), i.e. “…the detection system 116 and control system 117 may be separate devices, or they may be integrated within a single detection and control system device or set of devices.”); and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane (Jhanb, Fig. 1, 2, par. 0017-0018, 0023-0025, type of queries and adjust rate-limit is triggered based on traffic to endpoints, i.e. “The detection system 116 and control system 117 use the rule set 118 to determine what steady state parameters are desired, such as quality of service parameters, per service rate limits, and other limits. When the detection system 116 determines that the monitored parameters are violating one or more of these rules, meaning that one or more portions of the system--such as a communication link or a service--is becoming overloaded, it may direct the control system 117 to command one or more of the proxies 107, 108, 109 to control that traffic by reducing the number of communications that the devices launch into the system. The affected proxies will implement these commands by (1) halting, or caching and slowing the frequency of, communications from the proxy to the affected service or services, and (2) transmitting signals to the personal electronic devices to halt or slow the frequency of service requests to the affected service or services…For example, a rule might be to apply a traffic limiting instruction if the monitored number of queries per second directed to a specific service, or the amount of data flowing to and from a specific service (i.e., bandwidth) exceeds a threshold. Similar rules may be applied to a specific group of services, or to an aggregate of all services. The rule also may trigger a traffic limiting instruction if a sudden spike in a particular type of query is detected”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhao with the teaching of Jhanb because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Jhanb would allow Zhao to “… protect intermediary networks and third party services from the impact of a heavy traffic load…” (Jhanb, par. 0001-0003.) While the combination of Zhao and Jhanb teaches a change in resource consumption (Jhanb, par. 0018, i.e. “When the detection system 116 determines that the monitored parameters are violating one or more of these rules, meaning that one or more portions of the system--such as a communication link or a service--is becoming overloaded, it may direct the control system 117 to command one or more of the proxies 107, 108, 109 to control that traffic by reducing the number of communications that the devices launch into the system. The affected proxies will implement these commands by (1) halting, or caching and slowing the frequency of, communications from the proxy to the affected service or services, and (2) transmitting signals to the personal electronic devices to halt or slow the frequency of service requests to the affected service or services.”), the combination of Zhao and Jhanb does not explicitly teach resource consumption for the first query type as claimed. Tran, further teaches resource consumption for the first query type (Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25, change in resource consumption of a database query type would change the priority of the database request, including abort or reject execution of a database request.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Zhao and Jhanb with the teaching of Tran because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Tran would allow combination of Zhao and Jhanb to “to monitor execution of a database request based on one or more predefined rules, and to automatically take one or more predefined actions in response to detection of a violation of the one or more predefined rules” (Tran, col. 1 ln. 20-42)
Regarding Double Patenting Rejections(Remark, page 2), the rejection is held in abeyance until claims that are otherwise allowable. Therefor, the Double Patenting Rejections is repeated in this Office Action.
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 27-46 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11870870. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the claim 1-24 of the Patent No. 11870870 can also be interpreted as claimed features as claimed in the claims 27-46 of the present application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-24 of Patent No. 11870870 to arrive at the claims 27-46 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim comparison: Claimed subject matter is in paralleled for the purpose of comparison
Present Application
US. No. 11870870
27. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising: adjusting, at a control plane, a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type of a plurality of query types directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained from the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored; and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane
28. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises the control plane.
29. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server, the control plane, and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices.
30. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises a single logical proxy executing a plurality of processes for a respective plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of endpoints comprises the first endpoint.
31. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 30, further comprising: adjusting, at the control plane, a second rate-limit parameter for a second plurality of queries of a second query type of the plurality of query types directed to one or more second endpoints of the plurality of endpoints; and dynamically altering, at the proxy server, a second filtering process for the second plurality of queries of the second query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted second rate-limiting parameter obtained from the control plane.
32. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 31, wherein the adjusting, at the control plane, the second rate-limit parameter for the second plurality of queries of the second query type directed to the one or more second endpoints is based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of latency for the second query type.
33. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 27, wherein the one or more parameters indicative of the change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type comprise one or more parameters indicative of a change in CPU usage, memory usage, power consumption, or network traffic condition, or a combination thereof.
34. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 27, wherein the first plurality of queries of the first query type of the plurality of query types comprise one or more queries formulated in a GraphQL query language.
35. (Currently Amended) An apparatus, comprising: a control plane to adjust a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type of a plurality of query types directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained from the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored; and a proxy server to dynamically alter a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane.
36. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein the proxy server comprises the control plane.
37. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein the proxy server, the control plane, and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices.
38. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein the proxy server comprises a single logical proxy to execute a plurality of processes for a respective plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of endpoints comprises the first endpoint.
39. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein: the control plane to adjust a second rate-limit parameter for a second plurality of queries of a second query type of the plurality of query types directed to one or more second endpoints of the plurality of endpoints; and the proxy server to dynamically alter a second filtering process for the second plurality of queries of the second query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted second rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane.
40. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 39, wherein the control plane to adjust the second rate-limit parameter for the second plurality of queries of the second query type directed to the one or more second endpoints based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of query latency for the second query type.
41. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein the one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type comprise one or more parameters indicative of a change in CPU usage, memory usage, power consumption, or network traffic condition, or a combination thereof.
42. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 35, wherein the first plurality of queries of the first query type comprise one or more queries formulated in a GraphQL query language.
43. (Currently Amended) An article, comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a computing platform to: adjust, at a control plane of the computing platform, a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type of a plurality of query types directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained from the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored; and dynamically alter, at a proxy server of the computing platform, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane.
44. (Currently Amended) The article of claim 43, wherein the proxy server, the control plane, and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices, and wherein the one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type comprise one or more parameters indicative of a change in CPU usage, memory usage, power consumption, or network traffic condition, or a combination thereof.
45. (Currently Amended) The article of claim 43, wherein the non-transitory storage medium has stored thereon further instructions executable by the computing platform to: adjust, at the control plane of the computing platform, a second rate-limit parameter for a second plurality of queries of a second query type of the plurality of query types directed to one or more second endpoints of the plurality of endpoints; and dynamically alter, at the proxy server of the computing platform, a second filtering process for the second plurality of queries of the second query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted second rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane.
46. (Previously Presented) The article of claim 45, wherein the control plane to adjust the second rate-limit parameter for the second plurality of queries of the second query type directed to the one or more second endpoints based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of query latency for the second query type.
1. A method of managing an endpoint, the endpoint capable of handling one or more queries formulated in a particular query language, the method comprising: dynamically determining, at a control plane, one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more query-related structural features and based at least in part on one or more parameters obtained from the endpoint, wherein the endpoint comprises an origin server specified by the one or more queries as a particular location at which content requested by the one or more queries is stored, and wherein the one or more parameters obtained from the endpoint comprises at least one parameter indicative of a change in resource consumption for one or more particular query types; filtering, at a proxy, at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint based at least in part on the one or more control plane-determined query-related rate-limiting parameters, wherein the control plane, the proxy and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices; and permitting the endpoint to handle any remaining queries of the one or more queries after filtering at the proxy.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint comprises filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint substantially in accordance with the one or more control plane-determined query-related rate-limiting parameters and in accordance with one or more externally specified rate-limiting policies.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on the one or more measurements of query-related performance comprises dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more measurements of query-related latency.
16. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the control plane to further dynamically determine the one or more rate-limiting parameters based, at least in part on one or more measurements of processor and/or memory usage to be generated at the endpoint.
25. The article of claim 22, the particular query language to comprise GraphQL.
13. An apparatus comprising: a proxy comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the proxy to employ one or more rate-limiting parameters to filter at least one of one or more queries in order to manage query handling by an endpoint, wherein the endpoint comprises an origin server specified by the one or more queries as a particular location at which content requested by the one or more queries is stored, wherein the one or more rate-limiting parameters are to be dynamically determined at a control plane and wherein the one or more queries are to be formulated in a particular query language, wherein the control plane, the proxy and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices; and the control plane to dynamically determine the one or more rate-limiting parameters based, at least in part, on one or more query-related structural features and based at least in part on one or more parameters to be obtained from the endpoint, wherein the one or more parameters to be obtained from the endpoint to comprise at least one parameter indicative of a change in resource consumption for one or more particular query types.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint comprises filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint substantially in accordance with the one or more control plane-determined query-related rate-limiting parameters and in accordance with one or more externally specified rate-limiting policies.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint comprises filtering at more than one proxy one or more queries to be handled by the endpoint.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the endpoint comprises more than one origin server.
24. The article of claim 22, wherein the proxy comprises a proxy to filter the at least one of the one or more queries substantially in accordance with the dynamically determined rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more measurements of query-related performance.
15. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the proxy comprises a proxy to filter the at least one of the one or more queries substantially in accordance with the one or more rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more measurements of query-related latency.
16. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the control plane to further dynamically determine the one or more rate-limiting parameters based, at least in part on one or more measurements of processor and/or memory usage to be generated at the endpoint.
19. The apparatus of claim 13, the particular query language to comprise GraphQL.
22. An article comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions executable by at least one computing device, the at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one computing device to: execute instructions on the at least one processor, the instructions to be executed to have been fetched from the at least one memory; and store in the at least one memory any results to be generated from execution of the instructions on the at least one processor; wherein the instructions to be executed comprise instructions to operate a proxy, the proxy to assist in managing query handling by an endpoint; wherein the proxy instructions to be executed further to: employ rate-limiting parameters to filter at least one of one or more queries in order to manage the query handling by the endpoint, wherein the one or more queries are to be formulated in a particular query language, wherein the rate-limiting parameters to be dynamically determined at a control plane based at least in part on one or more query-related structural features and based at least in part on one or more parameters to be obtained from the endpoint, wherein the endpoint to comprise an origin server specified by the one or more queries as a particular location at which content requested by the one or more queries is stored, wherein the one or more parameters to be obtained from the endpoint to comprise at least one parameter indicative of a change in resource consumption for one or more particular query types, and wherein the proxy, the control plane and the endpoint to comprise separate network addressable devices.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamically determining, at a control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on the one or more query-related structural features further includes dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of query-related performance.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on the one or more measurements of query-related performance comprises dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more measurements of query-related latency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160381048 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150149610 to Jhanb et al. (hereinafter “Jhanb”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7958159 to Tran et al. (hereinafter “Tran”).
As to claim 27, Zhao teaches a method, comprising (computer implemented method in a system comprising processor, wherein the processor executes instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium, par. 0006, 0048-0056):
adjusting, at a control plane, a first rate-limit parameter for a first plurality of queries of a first query type directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more resource consumption at the first endpoint obtained from the first endpoint (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0032-0034, 0043, 0044, dynamically determining/adjusting requests at Pattern Discovery Module 160, including query related to rate of requests or rate of processing servers 110); and
While Zhao teaches filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0024, 0031-0033, 0044, altering requests based on Pattern Discovery Module 160), Zhao does not explicitly teach one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained for the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored ; and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane as claimed.
Jhanb teaches one or more parameters indicative of a change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type obtained for the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by the first plurality of queries of the first query type as a particular network addressable location (Jhanb, Fig. 1, par. 0015-0017, Device 101-103, Proxies 107-109, detection and control system 116-118 (Examiner interpreted as claimed “control plane”). Further, end point providing services 113-115 are separate devices (Examiner interpreted as claimed “endpoint”), i.e. “…the detection system 116 and control system 117 may be separate devices, or they may be integrated within a single detection and control system device or set of devices.”), separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the first plurality of queries of the first query type is stored (Jhanb, Fig. 1, par. 0015-0017, Device 101-103 separates from Proxies 107-109. Further, detection and control system 116-118 is also a separated device (Examiner interpreted as claimed “control plane”), and end point providing services 113-115 are separate devices (Examiner interpreted as claimed “endpoint”), i.e. “…the detection system 116 and control system 117 may be separate devices, or they may be integrated within a single detection and control system device or set of devices.”); and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, a first filtering process for the first plurality of queries of the first query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted first rate-limit parameter obtained from the control plane (Jhanb, Fig. 1, 2, par. 0017-0018, 0023-0025, type of queries and adjust rate-limit is triggered based on traffic to endpoints, i.e. “The detection system 116 and control system 117 use the rule set 118 to determine what steady state parameters are desired, such as quality of service parameters, per service rate limits, and other limits. When the detection system 116 determines that the monitored parameters are violating one or more of these rules, meaning that one or more portions of the system--such as a communication link or a service--is becoming overloaded, it may direct the control system 117 to command one or more of the proxies 107, 108, 109 to control that traffic by reducing the number of communications that the devices launch into the system. The affected proxies will implement these commands by (1) halting, or caching and slowing the frequency of, communications from the proxy to the affected service or services, and (2) transmitting signals to the personal electronic devices to halt or slow the frequency of service requests to the affected service or services…For example, a rule might be to apply a traffic limiting instruction if the monitored number of queries per second directed to a specific service, or the amount of data flowing to and from a specific service (i.e., bandwidth) exceeds a threshold. Similar rules may be applied to a specific group of services, or to an aggregate of all services. The rule also may trigger a traffic limiting instruction if a sudden spike in a particular type of query is detected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhao with the teaching of Jhanb because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Jhanb would allow Zhao to “… protect intermediary networks and third party services from the impact of a heavy traffic load…” (Jhanb, par. 0001-0003.)
While the combination of Zhao and Jhanb teaches a change in resource consumption (Jhanb, par. 0018, i.e. “When the detection system 116 determines that the monitored parameters are violating one or more of these rules, meaning that one or more portions of the system--such as a communication link or a service--is becoming overloaded, it may direct the control system 117 to command one or more of the proxies 107, 108, 109 to control that traffic by reducing the number of communications that the devices launch into the system. The affected proxies will implement these commands by (1) halting, or caching and slowing the frequency of, communications from the proxy to the affected service or services, and (2) transmitting signals to the personal electronic devices to halt or slow the frequency of service requests to the affected service or services.”), the combination of Zhao and Jhanb does not explicitly teach resource consumption for the first query type as claimed.
Tran teaches resource consumption for the first query type (Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25, change in resource consumption of a database query type would change the priority of the database request, including abort or reject execution of a database request.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Zhao and Jhanb with the teaching of Tran because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Tran would allow combination of Zhao and Jhanb to “to monitor execution of a database request based on one or more predefined rules, and to automatically take one or more predefined actions in response to detection of a violation of the one or more predefined rules” (Tran, col. 1 ln. 20-42)
As to claim 28, the combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises the control plane (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0032-0034, 0043, 0044, Pattern Discovery Module 160 as a control plane).
As to claim 29, combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server, the control plane, and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices (Jhanb, Fig. 1, par. 0015-0017, Device 101-103 separates from Proxies 107-109. Further, detection and control system 116-118 is also a separated device (Examiner interpreted as claimed “control plane”), and end point providing services 113-115 are separate devices (Examiner interpreted as claimed “endpoint”), i.e. “…the detection system 116 and control system 117 may be separate devices, or they may be integrated within a single detection and control system device or set of devices.”).
As to claim 30, the combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises a single logical proxy executing a plurality of processes for a respective plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of endpoints comprises the first endpoint (Fig 1B, par. 0012-0017, logical proxy such as DoS Mitigation Service 120 and plurality of endpoints 110).
As to claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising: adjusting, at the control plane, a second rate-limit parameter for a second plurality of queries of a second query type of the plurality of query types directed to one or more second endpoints of the plurality of endpoints (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0032-0034, 0043, 0044, dynamically determining/adjusting requests at Pattern Discovery Module 160, including query related to rate of requests or rate of processing servers 110. Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25); and dynamically altering, at the proxy server, a second filtering process for the second plurality of queries of the second query type based, at least in part, on the adjusted second rate-limiting parameter obtained from the control plane (Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, par. 0024, 0031-0033, 0044, altering requests based on Pattern Discovery Module 160. Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25).
As to claim 33, the rejection of claim 27 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the one or more parameters indicative of change in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the first query type comprise one or more parameters indicative of change in CPU usage, memory usage, power consumption, or network traffic condition, or a combination thereof (Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25, change in resource consumption of a database query type would change the priority of the database request, including abort or reject execution of a database request).
Regarding claim 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, is essentially the same as claim 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, respectively, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claim 43,44, 45, is essentially the same as claim 27,33, 31, respectively, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an article, rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 32, 40 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Jhanb, Tran, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180307728 to Crupi et al. (hereinafter “Crupi”)
As to claim 32, combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 31. The combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran does not explicitly teach wherein the adjusting, at the control plane, the second rate-limit parameter for the second plurality of queries of the second query type directed to the one or more second endpoints is based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of latency for the second query type as claimed.
Crupi teaches wherein the adjusting, at the control plane, the second rate-limit parameter for the second plurality of queries of the second query type directed to the one or more second endpoints is based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of latency for the second query type (Fig. 5, par. 0003, 0105-0108, i.e. “At block 510, the process 500 aggregates, according to the evaluated different query criteria specified for each of the different types of queries, candidates from the back-end database system(s) for potential use as remote derived sources. At block 512, the process 500 groups the aggregated candidates by latency requirement group based upon latency tolerance. At block 514, the process 500 selects one or more back-end database systems at which to dynamically create at least one remote derived source as one or more of the available/connected back-end database systems with a highest latency tolerance relative to at least one other of the one or more back-end database systems.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran with the teaching of Crupi because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Crupi would allow combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran to “solves a recognized real-time database performance problem by providing technology that includes a new form of relational database management system (RDBMS) processing that distributes data according to real-time workload/queries for improved runtime data access processing within complex distributed computing environments. The new technology described herein operates by creating remote data sources on back-end servers for query offload. The creation of the remote data sources (alternatively termed “remote derived sources”) may be leveraged to improve database performance in circumstances, such as mixed query workloads, that may involve varying latency, security, and cost requirements/specifications. The present technology solves these recognized real-time database performance problems by automatically creating (or recommending the creation of) remote derived sources based upon multiple criteria. The criteria may include, among others, application latency requirements, service level agreement (SLA) requirements (e.g., user-defined requirements), security requirements, and cost requirements. In some implementations, in addition to creating/recommending remote derived sources, the system may automatically route workloads to the created remote derived sources based on these and other types of performance and other criteria specified in association with the routed workloads.” (Crupi, par. 0001, 0002, 0011)
Regarding claim 40, is essentially the same as claim 32, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claim 46, is essentially the same as claim 32, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an article, rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 34 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Jhanb, Tran, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180121026 to Nadig et al. (hereinafter “Nadig”).
As to claim 34, combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran teaches the method of claim 27. While the combination of Zhao and Tran teaches plurality of query types (Tran, col. 4 ln. 23-45, col. 5 ln. 10-col. 6 ln 50, col. 7 ln. 9-25), the combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran does not explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of queries of the first query type of the plurality of query type comprise one or more queries formulated in a GraphQL query language as claimed.
Nadig teaches wherein the first plurality of queries of the first query type of the plurality of query types comprise one or more queries formulated in a GraphQL query language (par. 0049, GraphQL)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran with the teaching of Nadig because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Nadig would allow combination of Zhao, Jhanb and Tran to “provide techniques for rendering user-interface elements based on a variation metamodel included in a response to an API query. The variation metamodel is a construct that allows rules for displaying the requested data to be included in the query response itself. This allows the GUI to handle variability without having a hard-coded template for each possible variation of the rules for presenting the type of data requested” (Nadig, par. 0018)
Regarding claim 42, is essentially the same as claim 34, respectively, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights