DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 11/6/2023.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 9 – 14 and 17 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacchi et al (US 20220036206, prior art part of IDS dated 11/6/2023, hereinafter Vacchi), in view of Balko et al (US 20110153519, hereinafter Balko), and further in view of Deng et al (US 20190370600, hereinafter Deng).
As per claim 1, Vacchi discloses: A method, comprising:
accessing, by a computing system comprising a computing device, a [decision tree]; (Vacchi figure 2: rule base 202. [0041]: “a rule is a small piece of code of the form when <condition> then <consequence>. The <condition> may be a constraint over part of the working memory. The <consequence> may be a snippet of executable code, written in some programming language. In one embodiment, the collection of the rules in a rule engine forms the rule base”.)
partitioning, by the computing system, the [decision] tree into at least two partitions; (Vacchi [0042]: “Rule Unit A 301 is a partition of the rule base 302 that contains also one or more references to partitions of the working memory.”; figure 4: plurality of rule units.)
and causing, by the computing system, a first service that implements the first partition to be initiated on a first compute instance and a second service that implements the second partition to be initiated on a second compute instance. (Vacchi [0049]: “each Rule Unit Container 701a, 701b, 701c may be deployed on a container platform 702.”; [0052]: “at block 902, processing logic may generate a rule unit as a containerized microservice 151 on the cloud platform 103, deploy the containerized microservice 151 on the container platform 121 (block 904),”.)
Vacchi did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the decision tree comprises a Rete decision tree that identifies a plurality of nodes that correspond to conditions identified in a rules-based application and a plurality of paths through subsets of the nodes in accordance with logic of the rules-based application;
a first partition comprising a first plurality of nodes and a corresponding first set of the plurality of paths, and a second partition comprising a second plurality of nodes and a corresponding second set of the plurality of paths, wherein at least one of the nodes in the second partition comprises a copy of a node in the first partition;
However, Balko teaches:
wherein the decision tree comprises a Rete decision tree that identifies a plurality of nodes that correspond to conditions identified in a rules-based application and a plurality of paths through subsets of the nodes in accordance with logic of the rules-based application; (Balko [0032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Balko into that of Vacchi in order to have the decision tree comprises a Rete decision tree that identifies a plurality of nodes that correspond to conditions identified in a rules-based application and a plurality of paths through subsets of the nodes in accordance with logic of the rules-based application. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that Rete decision tree is a specific type of rule base/decision tree, and it would have been obvious for applicants to try and apply the parallel scheduling part of Vacchi into that of Balko so that the Rete tree can be better executed in parallel, such combination merely claims the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results of improved execution parallelization of Rete decision tree and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Deng teaches:
a first partition comprising a first plurality of nodes and a corresponding first set of the plurality of paths, and a second partition comprising a second plurality of nodes and a corresponding second set of the plurality of paths, wherein at least one of the nodes in the second partition comprises a copy of a node in the first partition; (Deng figure 2C and [0058], further more each path contains a copy of the root node.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deng into that of Vacchi and Balko in order to have a first partition comprising a first plurality of nodes and a corresponding first set of the plurality of paths, and a second partition comprising a second plurality of nodes and a corresponding second set of the plurality of paths, wherein at least one of the nodes in the second partition comprises a copy of a node in the first partition. Balko [0032] teaches of a Rete decision tree while Deng figure 2C and [0058] shows the composition of a decision tree, featuring a root note and plurality of path leading to other condition nodes. The claimed limitation merely cites the commonly known structure of branches of a decision tree, and merely claims the combination of known parts to achieve predictable results of improved execution parallelization of Rete decision tree and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the computing system, the Rete decision tree from the rules-based application. (Balko [0032])
As per claim 3, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein no path in the first partition implements a same logic as any path in the second partition. (Deng figure 2C and [0058]: different branch.)
As per claim 4, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first service comprises a first plurality of processing nodes that corresponds to the first plurality of nodes and the second service comprises a second plurality of processing nodes that corresponds to the second plurality of nodes. (Deng figure 2C and [0058].)
As per claim 5, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first service is implemented in a container. (Vacchi [0048], [0049])
As per claim 9, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a root processing node segment operative to route a fact object to one of the first computing device or the second computing device based on a type of the fact object. (Deng figure 2C and [0058].)
As per claim 10, it is the system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Vacchi [0028]: hardware)
As per claim 11, it is the system variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the system variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Vacchi [0061] – [0062])
As per claim 18, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 – 8, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng, and further in view of Kulkarni et al (US 20120159523, hereinafter Kulkarni).
As per claim 6, the combination of Vacchi, Balko and Deng did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein causing, by the computing system, the first service that implements the first partition to be initiated on the first computing device comprises causing an initiation of a plurality of processing nodes on the first computing device, each processing node of the plurality of processing nodes corresponding to a node in the first partition.
However, Kulkarni teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein causing, by the computing system, the first service that implements the first partition to be initiated on the first computing device comprises causing an initiation of a plurality of processing nodes on the first computing device, each processing node of the plurality of processing nodes corresponding to a node in the first partition. (Kulkarni [0034]: “Central container manager 301 receives middleware components associated with different tenant applications. Each middleware component comprises scale and/or partition information that the central container manager 301 uses to determine how many modules need to be placed on containers and how many nodes should be used. For example, a middleware component may define an application (A1) module (M1) having four partitions (P1-P4) with a scale unit of three, which requires the central container manager 301 to establish four partitions distributed across three compute nodes. Container manager 301 directs container management agents 302-304 on nodes 305-307 to establish specific module instances on containers 308-310.”; [0035]: “Container management agent 302 opens container 308 on the first node 305 and loads partitions P1 and P2 of module M1 on container 308. Container management agent 303 opens container 309 on the second node 306 and loads partitions P3 and P4 of module Ml on container 309. Partitions P1-P4 on containers 308 and 309 are the primary partitions on which the module runs. Container management agent 304 opens container 310 on third node 307 and loads partitions S1-S4 on container 310. Partitions S1-S4 are secondary or replica partitions that receive updated data from partitions P1-P4, but that provide no external service. Partitions S1-S4 are usually passive, but become active if one or more of the primary partitions P1-P4 fail.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kulkarni into that of Vacchi and Balko in order to cause. Balko [0032] teaches of a Rete decision tree while Deng figure 2C and [0058] shows the composition of a decision tree, featuring a root note and plurality of path leading to other condition nodes. Vacchi [0036] teaches “processing device 120 may generate a rule unit as a containerized microservice 151 on the cloud platform 103, deploy the containerized microservice 151 on the container platform 121”. Kulkarni [0034] – [0035] shows the claimed limitations are merely commonly known steps for concurrent processing of an applications, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results of deploying microservices to containers in a cloud network and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 7, the combination of Vacchi, Balko, Deng and Kulkarni further teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the processing nodes are implemented as serverless functions. (Vacchi [0048], [0049]: containers.)
As per claim 8, the combination of Vacchi, Balko, Deng and Kulkarni further teach:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a plurality of processing node segments based on the rules-based application, and wherein the processing nodes are initiated from corresponding processing node segments. (Kulkarni [0034] – [0035])
As per claim 15, it is the system variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the system variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subramanian et al (US 20240070476) teaches “A computer-implemented machine learning method includes accessing a decision tree associated with a path-based machine learning model. The decision tree is split into a plurality of multiway decision trees in a path-based formulation, each of the plurality of decision trees having an attribute not occurring more than once in each of the plurality of decision trees. A problem associated with the machine learning model is solved using one or more of the plurality of decision trees in which one or more decision rules of the decision tree are mapped using a mixed-integer program (MIPS).”;
Sakurai et al (US 20180067834) teaches “The data generator is configured to generate a set of characteristic data from both a set of first data and at least a set of second data, the at least set of second data being associated in time information with the set of first data, the set of characteristic data representing a plurality of characteristics. The characteristic data divider is configured to divide the plurality of sets of characteristic data into a plurality of groups on the basis of the plurality of classes defined by the class definer and condition of operations included in the set of first data. The evaluator is configured to evaluate a operating state using a first model defined for each of the plurality of groups divided by the characteristic data divider.”;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196