DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 12:
Lines 3-5 recite “upon determining that the first cumulative execution time is greater than the second cumulative execution time by a second threshold, adjust the first value used for computing priorities for the jobs of the first type in a manner that increases the priorities” but this is not supported by the specification. The specification recites in [0020] “determines that the cumulative execution time of completed short query jobs is greater than the cumulative execution time of completed normal query jobs by some threshold amount over the most recent time window (which means that the amount of compute time consumed by short query jobs is currently larger than desired), query job executor 108 can adjust the base offset in a manner that decreases the priorities of short query jobs relative to normal query jobs.” Therefore, the adjustment should be made such that the priorities decrease.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1 and 18 (line numbers refer to claim 1):
Lines 4-5 recite “wherein the normal query jobs are query jobs that take longer to complete than the short query jobs” and it is unclear if an aggregate of the normal query jobs take longer to complete than an aggregate of the short query jobs or if each normal query job takes longer to complete than each short query job.
Line 7 recites “each query job” and it is unclear what this refers to (short query jobs or normal query jobs).
Line 18 recites “priorities for the short query jobs” and it is unclear if this refers to “priorities for the short query jobs” above. If so, line 18 should be amended to “the priorities for the short query jobs”.
As per claims 1, 11, and 18 (line numbers refer to claim 1):
Lines 15 and 18-19 recite “the priorities” and it is unclear if this refers to “the priorities for the short query jobs”.
As per claims 3 and 20 (line numbers refer to claim 3):
Line 3 recites “the decreases” but should be amended to “that decreases”.
As per claim 4:
Line 2 recites “the base number” but it is unclear which base number it refers to since each query job has a base number.
Lines 4 and 5 recite “the query job” but it is unclear which query job this refers to.
As per claim 11:
Lines 6-7 recite “wherein the jobs of the second type are jobs that take longer to complete than the jobs of the first type” and it is unclear if an aggregate of the jobs of the second type take longer to complete than an aggregate of the jobs of the first type or if each job of the second type takes longer to complete than each job of the first type.
Line 9 recites “each job” and it is unclear what this refers to (jobs of the first type or jobs of the second type).
As per claim 12:
Line 5 recites “priorities for the jobs of the first type” and it is unclear if this refers to “priorities for the jobs of the first type” recited in claim 11. If so, line 5 should be amended to “the priorities for the jobs of the first type”.
Line 5 recites “the priorities” but it is unclear what this refers to.
As per claim 17:
Line 3 recites “the priorities of the jobs of the jobs of the first type”, but claim 11 recites “priorities for the jobs of the first type”. Therefore, line 3 should be amended to “the priorities for the jobs of the jobs of the first type”.
As per claim 18:
Line 4 recites “the database” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are dependent claims of claims 1, 11, and 18, and fail to resolve the deficiencies of claims 1, 11, and 18, so they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “dynamically balancing”, “on a periodic basis: computing a first cumulative execution time of a set of the short query jobs that are completed within a recent time window; computing a second cumulative execution time of a set of the normal query jobs that are completed within the recent time window; upon determining that the first cumulative execution time is less than the second cumulative execution time by a first threshold, adjusting a first base number used for computing priorities for the short query jobs in a manner that increases the priorities; and upon determining that the first cumulative execution time is greater than the second cumulative execution time by a second threshold, adjusting the first base number used for computing priorities for the short query jobs in a manner that decreases the priorities” recite a mental process. Dynamically balancing is a mental process since it merely involves mentally adjusting the priority of query jobs. Computing a first cumulative execution time and second cumulative execution time are both mental processes since humans can make mathematical computations in the mind. Adjusting a first base number based on a comparison is a mental process since humans can mentally equate the value of the base number to a new value. Additionally, the comparison between the first cumulative execution time and the second cumulative execution time can be performed mentally since humans can mentally judge whether one value is greater or less than the other by a first or second threshold.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitations “during runtime of the database, continuously measuring execution times of short query jobs and normal query jobs that are executed by the database” and “wherein the short query jobs and the normal query jobs are queued for execution in the query job queue in accordance with a priority that is computed for each query job” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations “during runtime of the database, continuously measuring execution times of short query jobs and normal query jobs that are executed by the database” and “wherein the short query jobs and the normal query jobs are queued for execution in the query job queue in accordance with a priority that is computed for each query job” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “a query job queue in a database” applies judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a query job queue in a database which is a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitation “wherein the normal query jobs are query jobs that take longer to complete than the short query jobs” merely describe attributes of the technological environment in with the abstract idea is operating. The courts have identified that generally linking the use of a judicial exception into a technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitations "during runtime of the database, continuously measuring execution times of short query jobs and normal query jobs that are executed by the database” and “wherein the short query jobs and the normal query jobs are queued for execution in the query job queue in accordance with a priority that is computed for each query job” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The limitations “during runtime of the database, continuously measuring execution times of short query jobs and normal query jobs that are executed by the database” and “wherein the short query jobs and the normal query jobs are queued for execution in the query job queue in accordance with a priority that is computed for each query job” are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" or “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitation “a query job queue in a database” applies judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore does not provide significantly more.
The limitation “wherein the normal query jobs are query jobs that take longer to complete than the short query jobs” merely describes attributes of the technological environment and
therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As per claim 11, it is a computer system claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, it recites “a computer system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to” which includes generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, it recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a computer system, the instructions causing the computer system to” which includes generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claim 19), it recites mental processes.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claim 20), it recites mental processes.
As per claim 4, it recites mental processes and attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 5, it recites mental processes.
As per claim 6, it recites mental processes.
As per claim 7, it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 8, it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 9, it recites mental processes.
As per claim 10, it recites generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 12, it recites mental processes and generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 13, it recites generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 14, it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor recites significantly more.
As per claim 15, it recites generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data". Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 16, it recites mental processes.
As per claim 17, it recites mental processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (CN113760493A) recites in [0023] “The third minimum value is selected from the sum of the number of waiting jobs in each of the lower-priority and longer-duration jobs that are lower than the current priority and longer than the current duration, and the sum of the maximum parallelism of each of the lower-priority and longer-duration jobs that are lower than the current priority and longer than the current duration, minus the sum of the number of running lower-priority and longer-duration jobs that are lower than the current priority and longer than the current duration. The third minimum value is added to the sum of the number of waiting jobs in each of the lower-priority and shorter-duration jobs that are lower than the current priority and shorter than the current duration to obtain the first quantity value.”
Montero (US 20190394120 A1) recites in [0081] “For example, a first duration of a first most recent previous communication between the first address 118 and the third-party address 114 may be less than a second duration of a second most recent previous communication between the second address 120 and the third-party address 11. However, the first total duration may be greater than the second total duration.”
Jain et al. (US 20230273806 A1) discloses in [0033-0034] “if the current virtual machine is the first virtual machine and the processing logic determines that the total overhead time value of the first virtual machine is the largest compared to the total overhead time values of the other virtual machines, the processing logic can determine a difference between the total overhead time value of the first virtual machine and each of the other total overhead time values (e.g., the total overhead time value of the second virtual machine). The processing logic can then determine, based on the comparing, whether the total overhead time value of the first virtual machine satisfies the compensation threshold criterion. For example, the processing logic can determine whether the total overhead time value of the first virtual machine is greater than the total overhead time value of the second virtual machine, and if so, whether the difference satisfies the compensation threshold criterion. The compensation threshold criterion can be considered satisfied if the difference exceeds the respective assigned execution time period (e.g., the time slice of 2 ms). Responsive to determining that the total overhead time value of the first virtual machine satisfies the compensation threshold criterion, the processing logic can cause the next run of the first virtual machine to be repeated before running any other of the plurality of virtual machines.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSING CHUN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8522. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights