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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2026 and 01/15/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 01/15/2026.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 21 were previously presented by Applicant.
Claim 1 was cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 2 – 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 10/17/2025 as to claims 2 – 21 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Data Trace ID’s (DTI) are now added and presented in useful claimed tables allowing those target computer systems (which were proximately found to have processed the data which was located by dent of adding a DTI tag to them) to be practically identified.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 10/17/2025 as to claims 2 – 21 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 103 that Kant (the primary reference in the preceding second non-final rejection) does not adequately address the instant claims of 1/15/2026, within which the “unified data model” is now expressly claimed. Remarks 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kant, as previously mentioned, describes tracing technology using an identifier. Apart from the actual specific mapping (see 35 USC 103 analysis below), Kant utilizes its “data trace ID” scheme in the same way as does Kant to find out which computer systems may have processed the sought after data (having the data trace ID). Namely:
The present invention relates generally to online distributed computer systems and, more particularly, to tracing user requests processed by such systems.”, [001]).
Moreover, Kant also sets forth:
“The method comprises the steps of generating trace events at a plurality of system nodes of the online distributed computer system for a plurality of request paths. Each trace event is generated for a corresponding one of the request paths and for a corresponding span of the corresponding request path. The corresponding span represents computation performed by the system node at which the trace event is generated on behalf of an interprocess communication call from a parent span in the corresponding request path. The parent span corresponds to one of the system nodes in the corresponding request path. The method further includes the steps of collecting the generated trace events from the system nodes; identifying a subset of the collected trace events pertaining to a particular system node; computing a span metric aggregate from span metrics in the subset of trace events; displaying, in a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the particular system node; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the span metric aggregate in conjunction with the display of the graphical representation of the particular system node.”, [012]).
The argument that Kant does not solve the data trace problem in the same way as does this application is not convincing. Remarks 13. There is nothing claimed herein (1/15/2026) that distinguishes the instant data trace ID location scheme (in disparate processing computer systems) from that which is found in Kant.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 10/17/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 01/15/2026 seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
Claims 2 – 21 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kant (US20210119892A1) in view of Jain (US20150006714A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16:
Kant discloses:
a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: (“Computing device 100 also includes a main memory 106, such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to bus 102 for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor 104. Main memory 106 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor 104. Such instructions, when stored in non-transitory storage media accessible to processor 104, render computing device 100 into a special-purpose computing device that is customized to perform the operations specified in the instructions.”, [032]);
configuring, using a data library, databases of a plurality of computing services according to a unified data model, wherein the configuring includes adding a data field to data tables of the databases for recording a data trace identifier (ID); ("To do this reconstruction, unique “trace identifiers” are used. In particular, the trace identifiers can be assigned to initiator requests at the edge nodes that receive the initiator requests. Then, the trace events caused by application instances processing an initiator request can be generated to include the trace identifier assigned to the initiator request. The trace identifiers in the trace events can then be used to associate the trace events with the particular initiator requests that caused them to be generated. Trace identifiers and other distributed tracing metadata may be propagated between application instances in IPC calls.", [070]) and (“Interesting performance metric information from the trace events can be associated with the spans when reconstructing the request path tree from the trace events.”, [0119]) and see the detailed Table 3 of Kant about which it is expressly stated that … (“From these trace events it can be determined that it took approximately 900 milliseconds for span 1 to handle the initiator's request. It can also be determined that most of the time spent handling the request was by span 4 which took approximately 700 milliseconds to handle the IPC call from span 3. In this example, the error code values returned in the IPC call replies from spans 2, 3, 4, and 5 and in the response from span 1 were all HTTP status codes of 200 OK. Alternatively, the error code values can be from other application-level protocols (e.g., SMTP) if an application-level protocol other than HTTP is used for interprocess communication between nodes. Even if HTTP is used for interprocess communication, the error code values could be other than 200 OK. For example, if an error occurred in span 4 handling the IPC call from node 3, the error code value could be, for example, 500 SERVER ERROR instead of 200 OK.”, [0120]), data tables (as the above Table shows) and fields within those processing computer systems wherein data trace ID’s may be located are discussed, configured, and recorded;
propagating the data trace ID alongside data, wherein the data trace ID is used for tracking data that is processable by the plurality of computing services, and wherein the data is processed by one or more of the plurality of computing services during a use of a data processing flow; (“The method comprises the steps of generating trace events at a plurality of system nodes of the online distributed computer system for a plurality of request paths. Each trace event is generated for a corresponding one of the request paths and for a corresponding span of the corresponding request path. The corresponding span represents computation performed by the system node at which the trace event is generated on behalf of an interprocess communication call from a parent span in the corresponding request path. The parent span corresponds to one of the system nodes in the corresponding request path.”, [012]);
creating individual records for the data trace ID in corresponding databases of the plurality of computing services; (“Search engine 810 may provide a user interface for indexing, querying and viewing individual trace events.”, [0145]);
wherein each of the individual records are configured to store the data trace identifier in the data field and an indication of processing performed on at least a portion of the data; (““Tracing” is a technology for capturing and recording information about a software system's execution.”, [005]) and (“FIG. 7 illustrates an example relation for storing collected trace events.”, [023]);
querying the corresponding databases of the plurality of computing services using the data trace ID to identify updates to the individual records based on the use of the data for the data processing flow; (“A second aspect of the distributed tracing technologies of the present invention includes, for example, a method for targeted distributed tracing in an online distributed computer system. The method comprises the steps of receiving a targeted trace query at an edge node of the online distributed computer system; receiving an initiator request at the edge node; evaluating the query against the initiator request; and enabling distributed tracing of the initiator request if the initiator request satisfies the query.”, [0014]);
writing the ID tracing data to a data library in association with the data trace ID, so as to allow the ID tracing data to be used for diagnosing service faults or managing access or storage to comply with a policy. (“The method further includes the steps of collecting the generated trace events from the system nodes; identifying a subset of the collected trace events pertaining to a particular system node; computing a span metric aggregate from span metrics in the subset of trace events; displaying, in a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the particular system node; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the span metric aggregate in conjunction with the display of the graphical representation of the particular system node.”, [012]).
Kant does not expressly disclose, but Jain teaches:
determining ID tracing data based on the updates to the individual records queried from the corresponding databases of the plurality of computing services, wherein the ID tracing data is representative of a pathway, through the one or more computing services, that is identified for the data based on the updates to the individual records; and(“The method of claim 1 further comprising, logging flow data, including maintaining a data structure into which one or more flow identifiers associated with a flow are mapped to one or more locations in the data structure, and updating the one or more locations in the data structure to represent the flow data.”, [claim 9]);
determining that the data is processed by the plurality of computing services during the use of the data processing flow; the above term “service” is interpreted to include “services”, … (“Distributed computing provides sharing of computer resources and services by communicative exchange among computing devices and systems. These resources and services include the exchange of information, cache storage and disk storage for objects, such as files. These resources and services also include the sharing of processing power across multiple processing units for load balancing, expansion of resources, specialization of processing, and the like.”, [048]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Kant to incorporate the teachings of Jain because Kant would be more efficient and versatile if it could update individual records queried by tracing data as done in Jain. (“and updating the one or more locations in the data structure to represent the flow data.”, [see claim 9 of Jain]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16:
Kant further discloses:
wherein, prior to the propagating, the operations further comprise: receiving the data for the data processing flow, wherein the plurality of computing services share a unified data model for data storage by the corresponding databases of the plurality of computing services, and wherein the data library is utilized to trace the data for the data storage by the unified data model. (“In some embodiments, trace events are generated at system nodes by standard libraries of executing application instances at predefined execution points. The execution points are predefined in the sense that the standard libraries used by application instances are configured or designed to generate the trace events at the execution points when the application instances are executed. For example, referring again to FIG. 4, trace events can be generated by standard library 402 at execution points”, [125]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 3, 10, and 17:
Kant further discloses:
prior to the propagating, the operations further comprise: generating the data trace ID for the data based at least on the unified data model and information particular to the data; and (“The method comprises the steps of generating trace events at a plurality of system nodes of the online distributed computer system for a plurality of request paths. Each trace event is generated for a corresponding one of the request paths and for a corresponding span of the corresponding request path. The corresponding span represents computation performed by the system node at which the trace event is generated on behalf of an interprocess communication call from a parent span in the corresponding request path.”, [012]);
writing the data trace ID to the data library that is accessible by the plurality of computing services during the use of the data processing flow. (“The method further includes the steps of collecting the generated trace events from the system nodes; identifying a subset of the collected trace events pertaining to a particular system node; computing a span metric aggregate from span metrics in the subset of trace events; displaying, in a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the particular system node; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the span metric aggregate in conjunction with the display of the graphical representation of the particular system node.”, [012]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16:
Kant further discloses:
wherein the propagating comprises injecting, using a remote procedure call (RPC) interceptor, the data trace ID to a message header of a message associated with the data during the use of the data processing flow, and (“With targeted distributed tracing, trace events for specifically targeted initiator requests are generated. In an embodiment, the targeted initiator request are HTTP requests and the HTTP requests can be targeted based on fields in the HTTP request header and name-value pairs in the query string portion of the HTTP request Uniform Resource Locator (URL).”, [181]);
wherein the data trace ID is injected to the message header when processing the data by, or transmitting the data between, the plurality of computing services. (“The above deficiencies and other problems associated with distributed tracing technologies for online distributed computer systems are reduced or eliminated by the disclosed distributed tracing technologies.”, [011]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16:
Kant further discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: tracing processing of the data through at least two of the plurality of computing services using the data trace ID from the data library and (“The above deficiencies and other problems associated with distributed tracing technologies for online distributed computer systems are reduced or eliminated by the disclosed distributed tracing technologies.”, [011]);
the individual records from the corresponding databases of the plurality of computing services. (“The above deficiencies and other problems associated with distributed tracing technologies for online distributed computer systems are reduced or eliminated by the disclosed distributed tracing technologies.”, [011]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16:
Kant further discloses:
wherein the data library is accessible by the plurality of computing services, and (“Such instructions, when stored in non-transitory storage media accessible to processor 104, render computing device 100 into a special-purpose computing device that is customized to perform the operations specified in the instructions.”, [032]);
wherein the data trace ID from the data library is propagated with the data during one or more data processing operations of the data by each of the plurality of computing services. (“Trace identifiers and other distributed tracing metadata may be propagated between application instances in IPC calls.”, [070]).
Regarding claims 8 and 15:
The combination of Kant and Jain disclose all limitations of claims 2 and 9:
Kant further discloses:
wherein prior to the propagating the data trace ID, the operations further comprise: adding the data trace ID to one or more messages headers when the data is transmitted between the plurality of computing services. (“With targeted distributed tracing, trace events for specifically targeted initiator requests are generated. In an embodiment, the targeted initiator request are HTTP requests and the HTTP requests can be targeted based on fields in the HTTP request header and name-value pairs in the query string portion of the HTTP request Uniform Resource Locator (URL).”, [181]);
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Sanghvi (US20120197788A1) - A payment processing network operator obtains, from customer service providers, a first plurality of messages specifying a plurality of bill payments to a plurality of biller entities. Said first plurality of messages specifies, for each of the bill payments, an amount and an intended one of the biller entities to be paid. Based on the first plurality of messages, the operator of the payment processing network dispatches, to the plurality of biller entities, a second plurality of messages to initiate the plurality of bill payments. The operator of the payment processing network obtains data that specifies when at least some of the first plurality of messages are to be obtained and/or when at least some of the second plurality of messages are to be dispatched. Obtaining the first plurality of messages and/or scheduling dispatching the second plurality of messages are carried out in accordance with the data.
Sung (US20150009990A1) - A method carried out by a first communications router for transmitting data packets to a second communications router by establishing an aggregated end-to-end connection with the second communications router. The aggregated end-to-end connection comprises a plurality of established end-to-end connections which are classified into a first group and at least one non-first group of established end-to-end connection(s). The first group of established end-to-end connection(s) satisfy all of one or more conditions and the at least one non-first group of established end-to-end connection(s) do not satisfy all of the one or more conditions. Data packets are transmitted through the first group of established end-to-end connection(s) and the at least one non-first group of established end-to-end connection(s), although, it is preferred to transmit data packets through the first group of established end-to-end connection(s). The present invention further comprises a method and system for determining whether each of the established end-to-end connections of an aggregated end-to-end connection belongs to a first group of established end-to-end connection(s) or at least one non-first group of established end-to-end connection(s) and determining whether data packets are first type data packets. The first type data packets are transmitted through the first group of established end-to-end connection(s).
Pignataro (US20180062962A1) - Embodiments are directed to a service function configured to receive, from a service function forwarder, a data packet comprising a bit field to indicate that a packet drop is to be monitored; apply a policy for the data packet; determine that the data packet is to be dropped based on the policy; set a drop-propagate bit in a header of the data packet; and transmit the data packet to the service function forwarder. Embodiments are directed to a service function forwarder configured to receive a data packet from a service function, the data packet comprising a bit set to indicate that a packet drop is to be monitored; generate an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) message, the ICMP message comprising a destination address for the ICMP message identified from the data packet; transmit the ICMP message to the destination address; and drop the data packet from the service function chain.
Ogrinz (US20150296007A1) - Embodiments disclosed herein relate to systems, methods, and computer program products for deploying an application in a networked server environment. In some embodiments, the method monitors server metrics and deploys the application according to prioritization criteria associated with the application. The system, method, and computer program product are configured to identify a plurality of servers connected via a network; monitor a plurality of metrics associated with each server, wherein the metrics are associated with server performance or server communication over the network; receive a request to deploy an application on at least one of the servers, wherein the prioritization criteria rank the metrics in order of importance to the application; determine a deployment server for the application based at least in part on the metrics and the prioritization criteria; and deploy the application to the deployment server.
Doshi (US20210081271A1) - Methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture to provide a distributed edge-based tracing framework system are disclosed. An example system includes an intermediary generator to generate an intermediary in response to a monitoring request, the intermediary to monitor execution of a service executing in an execution vehicle; an intermediary controller to gather data regarding the monitored execution of the service from the intermediary, and control the intermediary in response to the monitored execution; and a remediator to provide a remediation in response to an error identified in the monitored execution of the service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights