DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich (US 2007/0118652 ) (hereinafter Diedrich) in view of Ramachandran et al (US 10621014 ) (hereinafter Ramachandran).
As per claim 1, Diedrich teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving a service request dispatched from a service at a first location based upon a service extension (Diedrich, [0080]—under BRI, a service request dispatched from a service at a first location based upon a service extension can be receiving a work unit from active server based on the need to extend service onto passive server);
at the first location, executing the code to process the service request to produce an output (Diedrich, [0080]); and
communicating the output back to the service at the first location (Diedrich, [0080]), for processing with reference to a system at a second location remote from the first location (Diedrich, [0080], claim 7—under BRI, for processing with reference to a system can be using a 2nd location system to combine results).
Diedrich does not expressly teach:
at the first location, loading code from a non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
However, Ramachandran discloses:
at the first location, loading code from a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Ramachandran, col 3, ll30-33);
Both Ramachandran and Diedrich pertain to the art of code generation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ramachandran’s method to load code from memory because it is well-known in the art that physical storage media—such as external hard drives, SSDs, USB drives, and optical discs—provide significant benefits including total data control, immunity to internet outages, and no recurring subscription fees.
As per claim 2, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1) further comprising:
generating the code at the first location (Ramachandran, col 3, ll30-33); and
storing the code in the non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Ramachandran, col 3, ll30-33).
As per claim 3, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1) wherein the code is generated using a visual coding interface (Ramachandran, col 4, ll1-13).
As per claim 4, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1) wherein the service request is processed based upon a context (Diedrich, [0080], claim 7—under BRI, a context can be the need to run work unit a passive server).
As per claim 6, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1) wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium is at the first location (Ramachandran, col 6, ll58-62).
As per claim 7, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1) wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises a database (Ramachandran, col 6, ll58-62).
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 20, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A computer system as in claim 16 (See rejection on claim 16) wherein the in-memory database engine is configured to recognize the service extension (Diedrich, [0080]) .
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dierich/Ramachandran as applied above, and further in view of Yang et al ( US 2023/0205553).
As per claim 5, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 4 (see rejection on claim 4).
Dierich/Ramachandran does not expressly teach:
wherein:
the context includes a timer; and
processing the service request further comprising triggering a timeout based upon the timer.
However, Yang discloses:
wherein:
the context includes a timer (Yang, [0100]); and
processing the service request further comprising triggering a timeout based upon the timer (Yang, [0100])
Both Yang and Dierich/Ramachandran pertain to the art of code processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yang’s method to trigger timeout with a timer because it is well-known in the art that service request timeouts prevent system resource exhaustion, improve user experience by closing idle connections, and enhance reliability through failure detection.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 2.
Claims 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dierich/Ramachandran as applied above, and further in view of Kunz et al ( US 2024/0184652 ) (hereinafter Kunz).
As per claim 8, Dierich/Ramachandran teaches:
A method as in claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7)
Dierich/Ramachandran does not expressly teach:
wherein the database comprises an in-memory database.
However, Kunz discloses:
wherein the database comprises an in-memory database (Kunz, [0028]).
Both Kunz and Dierich/Ramachandran pertain to the art of code processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kunz’s method to adopt an in-memory database because it is well-known in the art that in-memory databases (IMDBs) offer unmatched performance benefits by storing data directly in RAM, eliminating slow disk I/O, and enabling sub-millisecond response times, high throughput for real-time analytics, gaming leaderboards, and session management
As per claim 9, Dierich/Ramachandran/Kunz teaches:
A method as in claim 8 (see rejection on claim 8) wherein an in-memory database engine of the in-memory database executes the code (Ramachandran, col 7, ll 110-14—under BRI, executing can be executing search).
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 8.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12536348 teaches a method of generating code in memory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198