DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” and “publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit” in claims 1 and 11.1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“controller” [Wingdings font/0xE0] paragraph 46 of the present application’s specification states “The controller 404 may be and/or may include a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a central processing unit, a state machine, a logic circuitry, or a device that manipulates signals based on operational instructions.”
“publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit” [Wingdings font/0xE0] corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium includes a set of computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, implement the corresponding algorithms for publisher-subscriber functions. See Spec. [0096-0101]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rao teaches a system for propagation of events, the system comprising: a controller to route a request for modification of an object to a service (
Rao discloses, “In various embodiments, the data 102 may be associated with a client of the data set management service (e.g., a user/client at a remote network or at the local network). A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location). In some embodiments, one or more new events (e.g., one or more portions of data and/or metadata) may be sent to the service and the one or more new events may be added to the data, resulting in updated data that includes the one or more new events,” Col 2, Lines 59-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-3, “In embodiments, by leveraging the data set lineage metadata that was initially created when the data sets were generated, any changes (e.g., deleting events, adding events, and/or modifying data of events) made to a parent data instance (or the data 102 itself) may be automatically propagated to each child data set instance by performing the transformations indicated in the data set lineage metadata,” Col 5, Lines 20-26, and “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client,” Col 13, Lines 31-32.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “controller” is mapped to a software application that sends (or routes) data requests to or from the data management service.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “service” is mapped to the disclosed data set management service that receives the request from the software application for modifying data.
The claimed “object” is mapped to the disclosed data object that is requested to be modified.),
wherein the modification of the object generates an event, wherein the object corresponds to data in a system of record (
Rao discloses, “At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events,” Col 13, Lines 32-34.);
the service, wherein the service corresponds to the event generated (
Rao discloses, “As described herein, in various embodiments, the service may allow a user to modify a particular data set instance (e.g., delete events, add events, modify events my adding data),” Col 10, Lines 45-48.), wherein the service is to:
process the request for the modification of the object (
Rao discloses, “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client. At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events). At block 906, the service identifies, based on data set lineage metadata, a transformation to be performed on the modified data to generate an updated version of a data set instance. At block 908, the service performs the transformation on the modified data to generate the updated version of the data set instance,” Col 13, Lines 31-40.);
.
Rao does not teach to transmit the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit; and the pub-sub unit to publish received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event.
However, Shiraishi teaches to transmit the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.);
and the pub-sub unit to publish received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber),” ¶ 0061, and “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.
Here, a receiver is interested about an event if it applies for a message subscription for a desired topic to the publisher.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide to transmit the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit; and the pub-sub unit to publish received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event. Doing so would help provide flexibility for data propagation via the publisher-subscriber framework, which enhance a system’s resilience and flexibility, e.g. through asynchronous communication of data. (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Regarding Claim 8, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber). The transmitted message includes a topic name and a value,” ¶ 0061, “A packet transmitted from the transmitter 10 is transmitted to each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 in the same multicast group, and each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 receives the packet,” ¶ 0064.
The claimed “connection” is mapped to the connection that is established when the receiver applies for message subscription for a desired topic to the transmitter, and the transmitter transmits a message to the receiver in response.
Here, each of the receivers establishes a connection with the transmitter (which is also a controller in that it routes packets to different receivers, in a similar manner to Rao’s software application transmitting data to destinations) in order to receive data.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Beier (US 20200364185 A1), and Kairali (US 11561849 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1, comprising: a data repository corresponding to the service (
Rao discloses, “A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location),” Col 2, Lines 62-66, and “In the depicted example, the data 102 is stored by a data management service and may include any number of events associated with a client. The service may receive from a user associated with the client (e.g., one of a plurality of data scientists of a company that develops a chatbot application), a request to generate a data set instance. The request may indicate a transformation (e.g., query and/or script) to be performed on the data 102,” Col 3, Lines 30-37.
The claimed “data repository” is mapped to the disclosed storage location corresponding to the service that stores the data.);
wherein to indirectly transmit the event through the controller: the service is to apply the modification to the data repository (
Rao discloses, “In various embodiments, the data 102 may be associated with a client of the data set management service (e.g., a user/client at a remote network or at the local network). A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location). In some embodiments, one or more new events (e.g., one or more portions of data and/or metadata) may be sent to the service and the one or more new events may be added to the data, resulting in updated data that includes the one or more new events,” Col 2, Lines 59-67,
“As depicted, the user also sends a request to apply a transformation pattern (TransformationPatternY) to a data source. The request may specify the transformation pattern and the data source to run the pattern on (e.g., data set instance A). Upon acceptance of the request and/or execution of the transformation pattern, the service may return a response to indicate the request was accepted and/or the transformation pattern was initiated/executed by the service to generate the resulting data set instance(s),” Col 9, Lines 14-22.
Here, the service applies a transformation (modification) to the data after receiving a request from the software application (controller) (software application is used interchangeably with user).),
(
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide to transmit to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach a Change Data Capture (CDC) log to capture the generation of the event; and a back-end consumer to analyze and classify the event, or that the back-end consumer is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event.
However, Beier teaches a Change Data Capture (CDC) log to capture the generation of the event (
Beier discloses, “Many systems exist for moving data from one relational system to another. These systems can be classified into two categories: full refresh systems that copy entire data sets and change data capture (CDC) systems that optimize transfers by applying changes only. CDC systems enable a change data capture service such that only the data in a source system of the CDC system that has actually changed are updated in a target system of the CDC system,” ¶ 0002.);
and a data analysis system to analyze and classify the event (
Beier discloses, “For example, the data analysis system may be a data warehousing system or master data management system. The data analysis system may enable data warehousing or master data management or another technique that uses a source and target database systems, wherein the target database system comprises a target database that is configured to receive/comprise in accordance with technique a copy of a corresponding source database of the source system,” ¶ 0027,
“According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.
Here, a log associated with an event/operation is captured, and then the type of event/operation is determined.),
and that the data analysis system is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Beier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Beier and provide a Change Data Capture (CDC) log to capture the generation of the event; and a data analysis system to analyze and classify the event, and that the data analysis system is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event. Doing so would help allow for flexible and efficient data replication for the service (Beier discloses, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method for data replication in a CDC system in accordance with an embodiment of the invention,” ¶ 0020.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Beier does not teach that the analysis and classification of the event is done by a back-end consumer, or that the back-end consumer is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event.
However, Kairali teaches that the analysis and classification of the event is done by a back-end consumer, and that the back-end consumer is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event (
Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54, and “FIG. 1B provides an extension of the computing system 100 environment shown in FIG. 1A to illustrate that the methods described herein can be performed on a wide variety of computing systems that operate in a networked environment. Types of computing systems 100 may range from small handheld devices, such as handheld computer/mobile telephone 110 to large mainframe systems, such as mainframe computer 170. … Other examples of information handling systems include pen, or tablet computer 120, laptop or notebook computer 130, workstation 140, personal computer system 150, and server 160,” Col 8, Lines 64-67 and Col 9, Lines 1-11.
Here, it can be seen that a server or mainframe computer (back-end) can be used to analyze and classify event logs in response to specific types of events.
This is consistent with paragraph 51 of the present application’s specification, which states “The back-end consumer 412 may be a computing device, and may be and/or may include a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a central processing unit, a state machine, a logic circuitry, or a device that manipulates signals based on operational instructions.”).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Beier, and Kairali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Beier to incorporate the teachings of Kairali and provide that the analysis and classification of the event is done by a back-end consumer, and that the back-end consumer is to analyze the CDC log and classify the event. Doing so would help allow for using dedicated processors for classification of the log and event in order to improve performance (Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Beier (US 20200364185 A1), Kairali (US 11561849 B1), and Skinner (US 20030204517 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Rao in view of Shiraishi, Beier, and Kairali teaches the system of claim 2, wherein (
Rao discloses, “In embodiments, by leveraging the data set lineage metadata that was initially created when the data sets were generated, any changes (e.g., deleting events, adding events, and/or modifying data of events) made to a parent data instance (or the data 102 itself) may be automatically propagated to each child data set instance by performing the transformations indicated in the data set lineage metadata,” Col 5, Lines 20-26,
“As depicted, the user also sends a request to apply a transformation pattern (TransformationPatternY) to a data source. The request may specify the transformation pattern and the data source to run the pattern on (e.g., data set instance A). Upon acceptance of the request and/or execution of the transformation pattern, the service may return a response to indicate the request was accepted and/or the transformation pattern was initiated/executed by the service to generate the resulting data set instance(s),” Col 9, Lines 14-22.
Here, changes in events are automatically propagated to child data set instances. An event is essentially sent to child data set instances from the parent. After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, this is done using Shiraishi’s publisher-subscriber model.);
and transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Beier, and Kairali does not teach wherein to directly transmit the event to the pub-sub unit, the service is to: apply the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification.
However, Skinner teaches wherein to directly transmit the event to the pub-sub unit, the service is to: apply the modification to the data repository, and that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification (
Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.
Here, after receiving confirmation of a successful update to an object cache component (applying of modification to a repository), a notification (event) is sent to an update management component (publisher), which then directly sends notifications to multiple servers and clients (subscribers) regarding the update.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Beier, and Kairali, and Skinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi, Beier, and Kairali to incorporate the teachings of Skinner and provide wherein to directly transmit the event to the pub-sub unit, the service is to: apply the modification to the data repository, and that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification. Doing so would help ensure that the publisher and subscriber are informed of the latest updates to the repository and reduce the likelihood of staleness for cached data (Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.).
Claims 4-5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1) and Askeland (US 20200159570 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1. Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach wherein the event to the pub-sub unit is to be transmitted on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object.
However, Askeland teaches wherein the event to the pub-sub unit is to be transmitted on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, and “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350.” ¶ 0074.
The claimed channel is mapped to the disclosed “channel” associated with the disclosed “topic identifier”.
The claimed “identifier” is mapped to the disclosed “topic identifier”, which corresponds to an object associated with a topic.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Askeland are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Askeland and provide wherein the event to the pub-sub unit is to be transmitted on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object. Doing so would help allow using simple identifiers to differentiate between objects that may be larger and more complex, which would help improve performance.
Regarding Claim 5, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350,” ¶ 0074.
Here, receivers in the form of downstream controllers have subscribed to the channel where the message is sent, where the topic identifier corresponds to an object associated with a topic.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Askeland are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Askeland and provide wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object. Doing so would help allow using simple identifiers to differentiate between objects that may be larger and more complex, which would help improve performance.
Regarding Claim 11, Rao teaches a method for propagation of events, the method comprising:
routing, by a controller, a request for modification of an object to a service, wherein the modification of the object generates an event, wherein the object corresponds to data in a system of record (
Rao discloses, “In various embodiments, the data 102 may be associated with a client of the data set management service (e.g., a user/client at a remote network or at the local network). A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location). In some embodiments, one or more new events (e.g., one or more portions of data and/or metadata) may be sent to the service and the one or more new events may be added to the data, resulting in updated data that includes the one or more new events,” Col 2, Lines 59-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-3, “In embodiments, by leveraging the data set lineage metadata that was initially created when the data sets were generated, any changes (e.g., deleting events, adding events, and/or modifying data of events) made to a parent data instance (or the data 102 itself) may be automatically propagated to each child data set instance by performing the transformations indicated in the data set lineage metadata,” Col 5, Lines 20-26, and “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client. At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events,” Col 13, Lines 32-34,” Col 13, Lines 31-34.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “controller” is mapped to a software application that sends (or routes) data requests to or from the data management service.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “service” is mapped to the disclosed data set management service that receives the request from the software application for modifying data.
The claimed “object” is mapped to the disclosed data object that is requested to be modified.);
processing, by the service corresponding to the event, the request for the modification of the object (
Rao discloses, “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client. At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events). At block 906, the service identifies, based on data set lineage metadata, a transformation to be performed on the modified data to generate an updated version of a data set instance. At block 908, the service performs the transformation on the modified data to generate the updated version of the data set instance,” Col 13, Lines 31-40.);
Rao does not teach transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object; and publishing, by the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller.
However, Shiraishi teaches transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of:
directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.);
and publishing, by the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber),” ¶ 0061, and “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.
Here, a receiver is interested about an event if it applies for a message subscription for a desired topic to the publisher),
and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber). The transmitted message includes a topic name and a value,” ¶ 0061, “A packet transmitted from the transmitter 10 is transmitted to each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 in the same multicast group, and each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 receives the packet,” ¶ 0064.
The claimed “connection” is mapped to the connection that is established when the receiver applies for message subscription for a desired topic to the transmitter, and the transmitter transmits a message to the receiver in response.
Here, each of the receivers establishes a connection with the transmitter (which is also a controller in that it routes packets to different receivers, in a similar manner to Rao’s software application transmitting data to destinations) in order to receive data.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit; and publishing, by the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller. Doing so would help provide flexibility for data propagation via the publisher-subscriber framework, which enhance a system’s resilience and flexibility, e.g. through asynchronous communication of data (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller.
However, Askeland teaches transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, and “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350.” ¶ 0074.
The claimed channel is mapped to the disclosed “channel” associated with the disclosed “topic identifier”.
The claimed “identifier” is mapped to the disclosed “topic identifier”, which corresponds to an object associated with a topic.),
wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350,” ¶ 0074.
Here, receivers in the form of downstream controllers have subscribed to the channel where the message is sent, where the topic identifier corresponds to an object associated with a topic.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Askeland are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Askeland and provide transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller. Doing so would help allow using simple identifiers to differentiate between objects that may be larger and more complex, which would help improve performance.
Regarding Claim 17, Rao teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for propagation of events, the instructions being executable by a processing resource to:
route, from a controller, a request for modification of an object to a service, wherein the modification of the object generates an event, wherein the object corresponds to data in a system of record (
Rao discloses, “In various embodiments, the data 102 may be associated with a client of the data set management service (e.g., a user/client at a remote network or at the local network). A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location). In some embodiments, one or more new events (e.g., one or more portions of data and/or metadata) may be sent to the service and the one or more new events may be added to the data, resulting in updated data that includes the one or more new events,” Col 2, Lines 59-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-3, “In embodiments, by leveraging the data set lineage metadata that was initially created when the data sets were generated, any changes (e.g., deleting events, adding events, and/or modifying data of events) made to a parent data instance (or the data 102 itself) may be automatically propagated to each child data set instance by performing the transformations indicated in the data set lineage metadata,” Col 5, Lines 20-26, and “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client. At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events,” Col 13, Lines 31-34.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “controller” is mapped to a software application that sends (or routes) data requests to or from the data management service.
The claimed “propagation” is mapped to the disclosed propagation of changes made on a parent data instance to each child data set instance.
The claimed “service” is mapped to the disclosed data set management service that receives the request from the software application for modifying data.
The claimed “object” is mapped to the disclosed data object that is requested to be modified.);
process, from the service corresponding to the event, the request for the modification of the object (
Rao discloses, “At block 902, a data set management service receives a request to modify data associated with a client. At block 904, the service modifies the data to generate modified data (e.g., adding new events, updating events, deleting events). At block 906, the service identifies, based on data set lineage metadata, a transformation to be performed on the modified data to generate an updated version of a data set instance. At block 908, the service performs the transformation on the modified data to generate the updated version of the data set instance,” Col 13, Lines 31-40.).
Rao does not teach to transmit, from the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object; and publish, from the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller.
However, Shiraishi teaches to transmit, from the service, the event at least one of:
directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.);
and publish, from the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber),” ¶ 0061, and “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.
Here, a receiver is interested about an event if it applies for a message subscription for a desired topic to the publisher.),
and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller (
Shiraishi discloses, “As a basic operation, the receiver 20 (Subscriber) applies for message transmission (message subscription) for a desired topic to the transmitter 10 (Publisher), and the transmitter 10 (Publisher) transmits the message of the topic to the receiver 20 (Subscriber). The transmitted message includes a topic name and a value,” ¶ 0061, “A packet transmitted from the transmitter 10 is transmitted to each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 in the same multicast group, and each of the receiver 20 and the packet collection device 100 receives the packet,” ¶ 0064.
Here, each of the receivers establishes a connection with the transmitter (which is also a controller in that it routes packets to different receivers, analogous to Rao’s software application) in order to receive data.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit; and publishing, by the pub-sub unit, received event through the controller to a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller. Doing so would help provide flexibility for data propagation via the publisher-subscriber framework, which enhance a system’s resilience and flexibility, e.g. through asynchronous communication of data (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach to transmit, from the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller.
However, Askeland teaches transmitting, by the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, and “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350.” ¶ 0074.
The claimed channel is mapped to the disclosed “channel” associated with the disclosed “topic identifier”.
The claimed “identifier” is mapped to the disclosed “topic identifier”, which corresponds to an object associated with a topic.),
wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller (
Askeland discloses, “For example, an online controller may include a subscriber component and a publisher component. The online controller may receive a message from another controller (i.e., a publishing/upstream controller) via the subscriber component from a network channel and/or topic to which the online controller subscribes (e.g., in a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) architecture). The online control may additionally or alternatively publish messages to one or more subscribing and/or downstream controllers via a network channel and/or topic. In some examples, a message may comprise an identifier of a topic and/or channel…” ¶ 0022, “The publisher 342 may also include appropriate routing information with the message 344 such as, for example, a channel identifier and/or a topic identifier for a pub-sub architecture. The publisher 342 may publish the message 344 and the message 344 may be received by subscribing (downstream) controller(s) 350,” ¶ 0074.
Here, receivers in the form of downstream controllers have subscribed to the channel where the message is sent, where the topic identifier corresponds to an object associated with a topic.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Askeland are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Askeland and provide to transmit, from the service, the event at least one of: directly or indirectly to a publisher-subscriber (pub-sub) unit on a channel having an identifier corresponding to the object, wherein the plurality of receivers corresponds to receivers that are interested about the event, and wherein the plurality of receivers is to subscribe to the channel corresponding to the identifier of the object, and wherein each of the plurality of receivers is to establish a connection with the controller. Doing so would help allow using simple identifiers to differentiate between objects that may be larger and more complex, which would help improve performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1) and Xie (US 20190068526 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1. Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach wherein the controller is to determine the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers, wherein the first set of receivers correspond to receivers with a connection established to the controller, wherein the determination is based on a subscription of a channel of the pub-sub unit corresponding to an identifier of the object by the plurality of receivers.
However, Xie teaches wherein the controller is to determine the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers (
Xie discloses, “A broadcast server may comprise a broadcast component. The broadcast component may receive a broadcast message from a messaging bot and determine a plurality of subscriber threads for the broadcast message. Determining the plurality of subscriber threads may be based on the messaging bot, such as by comparing a messaging bot identifier for the messaging bot to the subscription registry to retrieve the thread identifiers for the message threads subscribed to the messaging bot,” ¶ 0149.
Here, a plurality of subscriber threads (receivers) is determined, wherein said plurality is a subset of the total subscriber threads.),
wherein the first set of receivers correspond to receivers with a connection established to the controller (
Xie discloses, “Subscriptions may be maintained in a subscription registry. A subscription registry may map between thread identifiers that uniquely identify message threads within the messaging system 140 and subscriptions to messaging bots. A subscription registry may comprise, without limitation, a database or database table with a row for each registered subscription. Each registered subscription may be associated with subscriber thread preferences for that subscription,” ¶ 0137.
Here, the threads subscribed to the messaging bot (controller) have an established connection with said messaging bot.),
wherein the determination is based on a subscription of a channel of the pub-sub unit corresponding to an identifier of the object by the plurality of receivers (
Xie discloses, “Subscriptions may be maintained in a subscription registry. A subscription registry may map between thread identifiers that uniquely identify message threads within the messaging system 140 and subscriptions to messaging bots,” ¶ 0137, and “A broadcast server may comprise a broadcast component. The broadcast component may receive a broadcast message from a messaging bot and determine a plurality of subscriber threads for the broadcast message. Determining the plurality of subscriber threads may be based on the messaging bot, such as by comparing a messaging bot identifier for the messaging bot to the subscription registry to retrieve the thread identifiers for the message threads subscribed to the messaging bot,” ¶ 0149.
Here, determining the set of threads that have subscribed to the messaging bot is based on matching them with an identifier associated with the messaging bot.
After the combination of Rao in view of Shiraishi, with Xie, determining the set of receivers that have subscribed to an object, as specified in Rao in view of Shiraishi, is based on matching them with the object’s identifier.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Xie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Xie and provide wherein the controller is to determine the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers, wherein the first set of receivers correspond to receivers with a connection established to the controller, wherein the determination is based on a subscription of a channel of the pub-sub unit corresponding to an identifier of the object by the plurality of receivers. Doing so would help ensure that the receivers do not end up receiving data from the wrong publisher (Xie discloses, “Determining the plurality of subscriber threads may be based on the messaging bot, such as by comparing a messaging bot identifier for the messaging bot to the subscription registry to retrieve the thread identifiers for the message threads subscribed to the messaging bot,” ¶ 0149.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1) and Addala (US 20120124584 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1. Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach wherein the controller is to: receive the event from the pub-sub unit; demultiplex the received event into a plurality of streams of the event; and transmit each stream of the plurality of streams of the event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers.
However, Addala teaches wherein the controller is to: receive the event from the pub-sub unit (
Addala discloses, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber. The illustrated embodiment includes an event manager 2210, and subscribers 2220, 2230, and 2240. According to the embodiment, event manager 2210 publishes event 2250 into an input channel of publish-subscribe message channel 2200,” ¶ 0211.
Here, an event is received at an input channel of a publish-subscribe message channel by a publisher (controller) before being split. The publisher of the message channel is analogous with the controller of Rao in view of Shiraishi, as both are software applications.);
demultiplex the received event into a plurality of streams of the event (
Addala discloses, “The messaging system can try repeatedly to transmit the message from the sender to the receiver until it succeeds. Transmitting data can include marshalling the data into byte form at the sender, transmitting the marshaled data as a byte stream from the sender to the receiver, and unmarshalling the data back into its original form,” ¶ 0203, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber,” ¶ 0211.);
and transmit each stream of the plurality of streams of the event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers (
Addala discloses, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber. … Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 then transmits a copy of event 2250 to each of the output channels,” ¶ 0211.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Addala are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Addala and provide wherein the controller is to: receive the event from the pub-sub unit; demultiplex the received event into a plurality of streams of the event; and transmit each stream of the plurality of streams of the event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers. Doing so would help provide flexibility for data propagation via the publisher-subscriber framework, which enhance a system’s resilience and flexibility, e.g. through asynchronous communication of data (Addala discloses, “According to the embodiment, event manager 2210 publishes event 2250 into an input channel of publish-subscribe message channel 2200. Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 then transmits a copy of event 2250 to each of the output channel,” ¶ 0211.).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1) and Khoury (US 20220303127 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1. Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; and transmit the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller.
However, Khoury teaches wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “The publisher may determine whether it has received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s) (Operation 234),” ¶ 0055.);
and transmit the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “If the publisher has not received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s), then the publisher may publish both the payload ciphertext and the key ciphertext to the existing publication stream (Operation 240).,” ¶ 0055.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Khoury are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Khoury and provide wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; and transmit the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller. Doing so would help ensure that an event is not unnecessarily transmitted multiple times (Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary,” ¶ 0055.).
Regarding Claim 10, Rao in view of Shiraishi teaches the system of claim 1. Rao in view of Shiraishi does not teach wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; and refrain from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller.
However, Khoury teaches wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “The publisher may determine whether it has received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s) (Operation 234),” ¶ 0055.);
and refrain from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary. Specifically, the publisher can refrain from republishing the key ciphertext if there is a reasonable certainty that each of the target subscriber(s) has already received the key ciphertext,” ¶ 0055.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, and Khoury are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Khoury and provide wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the controller is to: ascertain if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; and refrain from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller. Doing so would help ensure that an event is not unnecessarily transmitted multiple times (Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary,” ¶ 0055.).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Askeland (US 20200159570 A1), Beier (US 20200364185 A1), and Kairali (US 11561849 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the method of claim 11, wherein for transmitting the event
applying, by the service, the modification to a data repository corresponding to the service (
Rao discloses, “A user (or other source, such as hardware and/or a software application) may provide the data to the service and the service may store the data at a storage location (e.g., resulting in new or updated data at the storage location),” Col 2, Lines 62-66, and “In the depicted example, the data 102 is stored by a data management service and may include any number of events associated with a client. The service may receive from a user associated with the client (e.g., one of a plurality of data scientists of a company that develops a chatbot application), a request to generate a data set instance. The request may indicate a transformation (e.g., query and/or script) to be performed on the data 102,” Col 3, Lines 30-37.
The claimed “data repository” is mapped to the disclosed storage location corresponding to the service that stores the data.),
and transmitting (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide transmitting the event to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach wherein for transmitting the event indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: applying, by the service, the modification to a data repository corresponding to the service; capturing, by a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository; analyzing, by a back-end consumer, the CDC log; classifying, by the back-end consumer, the event; and transmitting, by the back-end consumer, the event to the pub-sub unit.
However, Beier teaches indirectly transmitting an event by capturing, by a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository (
Beier discloses, “Many systems exist for moving data from one relational system to another. These systems can be classified into two categories: full refresh systems that copy entire data sets and change data capture (CDC) systems that optimize transfers by applying changes only. CDC systems enable a change data capture service such that only the data in a source system of the CDC system that has actually changed are updated in a target system of the CDC system,” ¶ 0002.);
analyzing, by a data analysis system, the CDC log (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.
Here, a log associated with an event/operation is captured, and then the type of event/operation is determined.);
classifying, by the data analysis system, the event (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.);
and transmitting, by the data analysis system, the event to the pub-sub unit (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.
After the combination of Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, with Beier, after the analyzing of the log for categorization of the type of operation/event as specified by Beier, said operation/event is then transmitted to the pub-sub unit as specified by Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland. This is indirect transmission of the event to the pub-sub unit because the event is transmitted with the help of the change data capture (CDC) log.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Beier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Beier and provide wherein for transmitting the event indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: applying, by the service, the modification to a data repository corresponding to the service; capturing, by a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository; analyzing, by a data analysis system, the CDC log; classifying, by the data analysis system, the event; and transmitting, by the data analysis system, the event to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help allow for more flexible handling different types of events/operations (Beier discloses, “By having separate buffers for each type of operations, this embodiment may enable that transactions can be replicated and processed independently which may increase the flexibility and thus the efficiency of the data replication,” ¶ 0029.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier does not teach that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer.
However, Kairali teaches that that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer (
Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54, and “FIG. 1B provides an extension of the computing system 100 environment shown in FIG. 1A to illustrate that the methods described herein can be performed on a wide variety of computing systems that operate in a networked environment. Types of computing systems 100 may range from small handheld devices, such as handheld computer/mobile telephone 110 to large mainframe systems, such as mainframe computer 170. … Other examples of information handling systems include pen, or tablet computer 120, laptop or notebook computer 130, workstation 140, personal computer system 150, and server 160,” Col 8, Lines 64-67 and Col 9, Lines 1-11.
Here, it can be seen that a server or mainframe computer (back-end) can be used to analyze and classify event logs in response to specific types of events, and then transmit events to construct a timeline. After the combination of Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier, with Kairali, the events are transmitted to the pub-sub unit after classification.
This is consistent with paragraph 51 of the present application’s specification, which states “The back-end consumer 412 may be a computing device, and may be and/or may include a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a central processing unit, a state machine, a logic circuitry, or a device that manipulates signals based on operational instructions.”).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier, and Kairali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier to incorporate the teachings of Kairali and provide that that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer. Doing so would help allow for using dedicated processors for classification of the log and event in order to improve performance (Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54.).
Regarding Claim 18, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein to transmit the event
apply, from the service, the modification to a data repository corresponding to the service (
Rao discloses, “As depicted, the user also sends a request to apply a transformation pattern (TransformationPatternY) to a data source. The request may specify the transformation pattern and the data source to run the pattern on (e.g., data set instance A). Upon acceptance of the request and/or execution of the transformation pattern, the service may return a response to indicate the request was accepted and/or the transformation pattern was initiated/executed by the service to generate the resulting data set instance(s),” Col 9, Lines 14-22.
Here, the service applies a transformation (modification) to the data.),
and transmit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide transmitting the event to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach wherein to transmit the event indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to: apply, from the service, the modification to a data repository corresponding to the service; capture, from a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository; analyze, from a back-end consumer, the CDC log; classify, from the back-end consumer, the event; and transmit, by the back-end consumer, the event to the pub-sub unit.
However, Beier teaches indirectly transmitting an event by:
capture, from a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository (
Beier discloses, “Many systems exist for moving data from one relational system to another. These systems can be classified into two categories: full refresh systems that copy entire data sets and change data capture (CDC) systems that optimize transfers by applying changes only. CDC systems enable a change data capture service such that only the data in a source system of the CDC system that has actually changed are updated in a target system of the CDC system,” ¶ 0002.);
analyze, from a data analysis system, the CDC log (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.
Here, a log associated with an event/operation is captured, and then the type of event/operation is determined.);
classify, from the data analysis system, the event (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.);
and transmit, by the data analysis system, the event to the pub-sub unit (
Beier discloses “According to one embodiment, the at least one record buffer comprises multiple record buffers, the buffering of the log record comprising: categorizing the log record depending on the type of the operation performed by the database transaction that generated said log record, selecting a record buffer of the record buffers depending on the category of the log record, and performing the buffering of the log record in the selected record buffer,” ¶ 0029.
After the combination of Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, with Beier, after the analyzing of the log for categorization of the type of operation/event as specified by Beier, said operation/event is then transmitted to the pub-sub unit as specified by Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland. This is indirect transmission of the event to the pub-sub unit because the event is transmitted with the help of the change data capture (CDC) log.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Beier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Beier and provide to capture, from a CDC log, the generation of the event upon the applying of the modification to the data repository; analyze, by a data analysis system, the CDC log; classify, by the data analysis system, the event; and transmit, by the data analysis system, the event to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help allow for more flexible handling different types of events/operations (Beier discloses, “By having separate buffers for each type of operations, this embodiment may enable that transactions can be replicated and processed independently which may increase the flexibility and thus the efficiency of the data replication,” ¶ 0029.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier does not teach that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer.
However, Kairali teaches that that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer (
Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54, and “FIG. 1B provides an extension of the computing system 100 environment shown in FIG. 1A to illustrate that the methods described herein can be performed on a wide variety of computing systems that operate in a networked environment. Types of computing systems 100 may range from small handheld devices, such as handheld computer/mobile telephone 110 to large mainframe systems, such as mainframe computer 170. … Other examples of information handling systems include pen, or tablet computer 120, laptop or notebook computer 130, workstation 140, personal computer system 150, and server 160,” Col 8, Lines 64-67 and Col 9, Lines 1-11.
Here, it can be seen that a server or mainframe computer (back-end) can be used to analyze and classify event logs in response to specific types of events, and then transmit events to construct a timeline. After the combination of Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier, with Kairali, the events are transmitted to the pub-sub unit after classification.
This is consistent with paragraph 51 of the present application’s specification, which states “The back-end consumer 412 may be a computing device, and may be and/or may include a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a central processing unit, a state machine, a logic circuitry, or a device that manipulates signals based on operational instructions.”).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier, and Kairali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, and Beier to incorporate the teachings of Kairali and provide that that the analysis of the log, and classification and transmission of the event is done by a back-end consumer. Doing so would help allow for using dedicated processors for classification of the log and event in order to improve performance (Kairali discloses, “Each of the leading operating systems is uniquely configured to generate and categorize event logs in response to specific types of events and create a timeline of events that take place on the system, including events related to the server, kernel and running applications. Categories of logs may include application logs, event logs, service logs and system logs,” Col 1, Lines 48-54.).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Askeland (US 20200159570 A1), Beier (US 20200364185 A1), Kairali (US 11561849 B1), and Skinner (US 20030204517 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali teaches the method of claim 12, wherein
applying, by the controller, the modification to the data repository (
Rao discloses, “As depicted, the user also sends a request to apply a transformation pattern (TransformationPatternY) to a data source. The request may specify the transformation pattern and the data source to run the pattern on (e.g., data set instance A). Upon acceptance of the request and/or execution of the transformation pattern, the service may return a response to indicate the request was accepted and/or the transformation pattern was initiated/executed by the service to generate the resulting data set instance(s),” Col 9, Lines 14-22.
Here, changes in events are automatically propagated to child data set instances. An event is essentially sent to child data set instances from the parent. After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, this is done using Shiraishi’s publisher-subscriber model.);
and transmitting, by the controller, the event directly to the pub-sub unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali does not teach wherein for directly transmitting the event to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: applying, by the controller, the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification.
However, Skinner teaches wherein for directly transmitting the event to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: applying, by the controller, the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification (
Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.
Here, after receiving confirmation of a successful update to an object cache component (applying of modification to a repository), a notification (event) is sent to an update management component (publisher), which then directly sends notifications to multiple servers and clients (subscribers) regarding the update.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali, and Skinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali to incorporate the teachings of Skinner and provide wherein for directly transmitting the event to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: applying, by the controller, the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification. Doing so would help ensure that the publisher and subscriber are informed of the latest updates to the repository and reduce the likelihood of staleness for cached data (Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.).
Regarding Claim 19, Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein
apply, from the controller, the modification to the data repository (
Rao discloses, “As depicted, the user also sends a request to apply a transformation pattern (TransformationPatternY) to a data source. The request may specify the transformation pattern and the data source to run the pattern on (e.g., data set instance A). Upon acceptance of the request and/or execution of the transformation pattern, the service may return a response to indicate the request was accepted and/or the transformation pattern was initiated/executed by the service to generate the resulting data set instance(s),” Col 9, Lines 14-22.);
and transmit, from the controller, the event directly to the pub-sub unit (
Shiraishi discloses, “In the Pub/Sub model in the present embodiment, the transmitter 10 corresponds to a Publisher, and the receiver 20 corresponds to a Subscriber,” ¶ 0059, “The transmitter 10 is, for example, a sensor. The receiver 20 is, for example, a device that analyzes sensor data or a control device that controls in accordance with the sensor data,” ¶ 0060.
Here, the publisher/transmitter receives data from an outside source.
After the combination of Rao with Shiraishi, the publisher/transmitter receives an event from Rao’s system.).
Rao and Shiraishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to incorporate the teachings of Shiraishi and provide to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit. Doing so would help ensure that the transmission of data is consistent (Shiraishi discloses, “As a mechanism of Pub/Sub communication according to the present embodiment, there are a plurality of receivers (Subscribers), and even if packets are transmitted to the respective receivers using different encryption keys, the contents of Topic to be transmitted at the same timing are the same value,” ¶ 0113.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali does not teach wherein to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to: apply, from the controller, the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification.
However, Skinner teaches wherein to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to: apply, from the controller, the modification to the data repository, or that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification (
Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.
Here, after receiving confirmation of a successful update to an object cache component (applying of modification to a repository), a notification (event) is sent to an update management component (publisher), which then directly sends notifications to multiple servers and clients (subscribers) regarding the update.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali, and Skinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi, Askeland, Beier, and Kairali to incorporate the teachings of Skinner and provide wherein to transmit the event directly to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to: apply, from the controller, the modification to the data repository, and that the event is transmitted in response to a receipt of a confirmation from the data repository regarding the applying of the modification. Doing so would help ensure that the publisher and subscriber are informed of the latest updates to the repository and reduce the likelihood of staleness for cached data (Skinner discloses, “If the datastore management component 308 receives confirmation of a successful update from the database server, update management component 304B is notified of the updated data objects in object cache component 303B. Update management component 304B notifies all interested components on application server 307, and sends update notifications to all other interested servers and interested clients,” ¶ 0128.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Askeland (US 20200159570 A1), and Xie (US 20190068526 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the method of claim 11. Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach comprising determining, by the controller, the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers, wherein the first set of receivers corresponds to receivers with a connection established to the controller.
However, Xie teaches comprising determining, by the controller, the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers (
Xie discloses, “A broadcast server may comprise a broadcast component. The broadcast component may receive a broadcast message from a messaging bot and determine a plurality of subscriber threads for the broadcast message. Determining the plurality of subscriber threads may be based on the messaging bot, such as by comparing a messaging bot identifier for the messaging bot to the subscription registry to retrieve the thread identifiers for the message threads subscribed to the messaging bot,” ¶ 0149.
Here, a plurality of subscriber threads (receivers) is determined, wherein said plurality is a subset of the total subscriber threads.),
wherein the first set of receivers corresponds to receivers with a connection established to the controller (
Xie discloses, “Subscriptions may be maintained in a subscription registry. A subscription registry may map between thread identifiers that uniquely identify message threads within the messaging system 140 and subscriptions to messaging bots. A subscription registry may comprise, without limitation, a database or database table with a row for each registered subscription. Each registered subscription may be associated with subscriber thread preferences for that subscription,” ¶ 0137.
Here, the threads subscribed to the messaging bot (controller) have an established connection with said messaging bot.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Xie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Xie and provide comprising determining, by the controller, the plurality of receivers from a first set of receivers, wherein the first set of receivers corresponds to receivers with a connection established to the controller. Doing so would help ensure that the receivers do not end up receiving data from the wrong publisher (Xie discloses, “Determining the plurality of subscriber threads may be based on the messaging bot, such as by comparing a messaging bot identifier for the messaging bot to the subscription registry to retrieve the thread identifiers for the message threads subscribed to the messaging bot,” ¶ 0149.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Askeland (US 20200159570 A1), and Addala (US 20120124584 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the method of claim 11. Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach comprising: receiving, by the controller, the event from the pub-sub unit; demultiplexing, by the controller, the received event; and transmitting, by the controller, each stream of the demultiplexed event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers.
However, Addala teaches comprising:
receiving, by the controller, the event from the pub-sub unit (
Addala discloses, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber. The illustrated embodiment includes an event manager 2210, and subscribers 2220, 2230, and 2240. According to the embodiment, event manager 2210 publishes event 2250 into an input channel of publish-subscribe message channel 2200,” ¶ 0211.
Here, an event is received at an input channel of a publish-subscribe message channel by a publisher (controller) before being split. The publisher of the message channel is analogous with the controller of Rao in view of Shiraishi, as both are software applications.);
demultiplexing, by the controller, the received event (
Addala discloses, “The messaging system can try repeatedly to transmit the message from the sender to the receiver until it succeeds. Transmitting data can include marshalling the data into byte form at the sender, transmitting the marshaled data as a byte stream from the sender to the receiver, and unmarshalling the data back into its original form,” ¶ 0203, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber,” ¶ 0211.);
and transmitting, by the controller, each stream of the demultiplexed event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers (
Addala discloses, “Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 is a message channel that has one input channel that splits into multiple output channels, one for each subscriber. … Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 then transmits a copy of event 2250 to each of the output channels,” ¶ 0211.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Addala are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Addala and provide comprising: receiving, by the controller, the event from the pub-sub unit; demultiplexing, by the controller, the received event; and transmitting, by the controller, each stream of the demultiplexed event to a receiver of the plurality of receivers. Doing so would help provide flexibility for data propagation via the publisher-subscriber framework, which enhance a system’s resilience and flexibility, e.g. through asynchronous communication of data (Addala discloses, “According to the embodiment, event manager 2210 publishes event 2250 into an input channel of publish-subscribe message channel 2200. Publish-subscribe message channel 2200 then transmits a copy of event 2250 to each of the output channel,” ¶ 0211.).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 12380062 B1) in view of Shiraishi (US 20230246929 A1), Askeland (US 20200159570 A1), and Khoury (US 20220303127 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the method of claim 11. Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: ascertaining, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; transmitting, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller; and refraining, by the controller, from the transmitting of the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller.
However, Khoury teaches wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises:
ascertaining, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “The publisher may determine whether it has received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s) (Operation 234),” ¶ 0055.);
transmitting, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “If the publisher has not received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s), then the publisher may publish both the payload ciphertext and the key ciphertext to the existing publication stream (Operation 240).,” ¶ 0055.);
and refraining, by the controller, from the transmitting of the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary. Specifically, the publisher can refrain from republishing the key ciphertext if there is a reasonable certainty that each of the target subscriber(s) has already received the key ciphertext,” ¶ 0055.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Khoury are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Khoury and provide wherein when the event is transmitted directly and indirectly to the pub-sub unit, the method comprises: ascertaining, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; transmitting, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller; and refraining, by the controller, from the transmitting of the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller. Doing so would help ensure that an event is not unnecessarily transmitted multiple times (Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary,” ¶ 0055.).
Regarding Claim 20, Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17. Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland does not teach wherein when the event is directly and indirectly transmitted to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to ascertain, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; transmit, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller; and refrain, by the controller, from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller.
However, Khoury teaches wherein when the event is directly and indirectly transmitted to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to ascertain, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “The publisher may determine whether it has received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s) (Operation 234),” ¶ 0055.);
transmit, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “If the publisher has not received an acknowledgement from each of the target subscriber(s), then the publisher may publish both the payload ciphertext and the key ciphertext to the existing publication stream (Operation 240).,” ¶ 0055.);
and refrain, by the controller, from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller (
Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary. Specifically, the publisher can refrain from republishing the key ciphertext if there is a reasonable certainty that each of the target subscriber(s) has already received the key ciphertext,” ¶ 0055.).
Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland, and Khoury are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data-based computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao in view of Shiraishi and Askeland to incorporate the teachings of Khoury and provide wherein when the event is directly and indirectly transmitted to the pub-sub unit, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to ascertain, by the controller, if the event is already received and transmitted by the controller; transmit, by the controller, the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is not already received and transmitted by the controller; and refrain, by the controller, from transmitting the event to each of the plurality of receivers upon the ascertaining that the event is already received and transmitted by the controller. Doing so would help ensure that an event is not unnecessarily transmitted multiple times (Khoury discloses, “As noted above, ciphertext expansion can be very costly. To mitigate against some of those costs, the publisher may refrain from republishing the key ciphertext to an existing stream, when doing so is unnecessary,” ¶ 0055.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Challa et al. (US 20240220484 A1): Transmitting Change Data Capture Events During Database Replication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
1 According to MPEP § 2181, “Structural elements may appear in both product claims and process claims.”
Prosecution Insights