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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRock et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0340036 A1 (hereafter LaRock) in view of To Pub. No. US 2023/0055003 A1.
6. Regarding claim 1, LaRock teaches “A system for parallel processing of batch requests using a plurality of event-specific processing streams comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors ([Abs, 0062] teaches a system that may receive a plurality of computing tasks that may be executed by one or more nodes) cause operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of requests for batch processing at a preset time, wherein the preset time comprises a trigger for processing a request using a … processing service … ([0032] teaches receiving task information from a server or user; [0018] teaches that servers may be used as processing services. [0039-0043] teaches a predetermined scheduled time for executing a task, wherein the predetermined time includes a task time trigger which indicates the time and/or date for the task to be executed), and wherein each request of the plurality of requests comprises a respective event string encoded in proprietary formats for the first processing service … ([0039] teaches task information containing a task description and task event trigger); …
after receiving the plurality of requests, processing, with a scheduler service, a first event string of a first request of the plurality of requests, wherein the scheduler service: determines that the first request is for the first processing service … ([0032] teaches the task management computing device determining whether it received task information from a server or a user device, and once it has determined that task information was received, it may then proceed to the next steps in determining from the task information, a description for the task as well as other information retaining to the task, wherein the information is then used to assign the task to one or more processing resources (nodes) to execute the task as taught in [0055]);
determines a first time stamp for the first request that corresponds to the preset time; and generates a first processing service identifier for the first request, wherein the first processing service identifier indicates that the first request corresponds to the … first time stamp; and directing the first request to the first processing service for processing within the preset time … ([0042-0055] teaches a scheduled time of execution and determining the amount of time to complete a task based on available resources as well as being based on an end time and latest time. Once the current time exceeds the latest time to execute the task, it may attempt to execute the task. When the task is triggered, the task is loaded into a task queue and a task sequence identifier is generated, assigning the task to one or more processing resources).”
LaRock teaches of different types of tasks in [0018], however, may not explicitly teach triggering/executing a task using a specific processing service for the plurality of different tasks based on the request.
Pollack teaches context-based requests to specific service providers such that it teaches the limitation “… a request using a respective processing service of a plurality of processing services, wherein the plurality of requests includes requests for a first processing service and a second processing service … after receiving the plurality of requests, processing, with a scheduler service, a first event string of a first request of the plurality of requests, wherein the scheduler service: determines that the first request is for the first processing service from the plurality of processing services ([0029] teaches a consumer making a context-based request for a particular service, wherein a router determines the context of the request and routes it to a service that most closely satisfies the correct context. Also see Fig. 5 and [0040-0046] for more a more detailed example).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Pollack with the invention of LaRock, implementing a context-based routing method for routing context specific requests to respective services when triggered at a preset time. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide flexibility in handling different tasks at different respective processing services, providing consumers with the best suitable provider (Pollack [0013-0014]). Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of the invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
The combination may not explicitly teach directing a request to a processing service based on the identifier, such that the identifier identifies a node that the task is going to be processed on.
To teaches an identifier that includes the serial number of an IoT or other device such that it teaches the limitation “wherein the first processing service identifier indicates that the first request corresponds to the first processing service … and directing the first request to a first processing service for processing within the preset time based on the first processing service identifier ([0045]).” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of To with the combination of LaRock and Pollack to include a device identifier within the generated identifier for the task. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to funnel specific tasks to specialized service devices tasked with processing certain types of tasks among the plurality of services. Together, To in combination with LaRock and Pollack teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of the invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
7. Claims 2-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRock, Pollack, and To as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of D et al. Pub. No. US 2018/0063140 A1 (hereafter D).
8. Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches “A method for parallel processing of batch requests using a plurality of event-specific processing streams (LaRock [Abs] teaches a method), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of requests for batch processing at a preset time, wherein the preset time comprises a trigger for processing a request using a respective processing service of a plurality of processing services; after receiving the plurality of requests, processing, with a scheduler service, a first event string of a first request of the plurality of requests, wherein the scheduler service: determines that the first request is for a first processing service from the plurality of processing services (LaRock [0032] teaches receiving task information from a server or user wherein the task information includes a scheduled time for executing/triggering the task; Pollack [0041-0046] teaches that a consumer may request a particular service, and that a router may determine a provider to route the request based on the context specified in the request such that when combined with LaRock, the task information manager/router may determine from the task information, the context that allows for the router to identify a respective processing service among the plurality of service providers to route the task/request to);
determines a first time stamp for the first request that corresponds to the preset time; and generates a first event identifier for the first request, wherein the first event identifier indicates that the first request corresponds to the first processing service and the first time stamp; and directing the first request to the first processing service for processing within the preset time based on the first event identifier (LaRock [0042-0055] teaches a scheduled time of execution and determining the amount of time to complete a task based on available resources as well as being based on an end time and latest time. Once the current time exceeds the latest time to execute the task, it may attempt to execute the task. When the task is triggered, the task is loaded into a task queue and a task sequence identifier is generated, assigning the task to one or more processing resources; To [0045] teaches an identifier that includes the serial number of an IoT or other device. See previous combination for claim 1 as this is similar).
The combination does not explicitly teach of using a processing service configuration file to process the request.
D teaches a configuration file of a service such that it teaches the limitation “wherein the first processing service processes the first request with a first processing service configuration file, wherein the first processing service configuration file is specific to the first processing service ([0015-0017] teaches a configuration file being able to store for each service specific parameters and information for one of the services of the plurality of services).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of D with the combination of LaRock, Pollack, and To, to include a configuration file that stores parameter information for each service. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to be able to support multiple services within a shared library of a plurality of services. Together, D, in combination with LaRock, Pollack, and To teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of the invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
9. Regarding claim 14, it is similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 14 is directed towards “One or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors (LaRock [Abs, 0062]).”
10. Regarding claim 3, wherein the combination, LaRock teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein generating the first event identifier for the first request further comprises: determining a first event in the first request; and selecting the first event identifier from a plurality of event identifiers based on the first event (Fig. 5 & [0039] teaches a user updating parameters, providing a task event trigger that the user may select from a drop down menu list of existing tasks which may contribute to the generating of task sequence ID in [0046]. Also see Fig. 4).”
11. Regarding claim 4, wherein the combination, LaRock teaches “The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining whether the first request is completed ([0056] teaches a task being complete); and in response to determining that the first request is not completed, generating an additional identifier for the first request ([0059-0060] teaches an executed task triggering one or more other tasks such that the task is not yet completed. The other tasks are then marked and added to the queue, such that they may be assigned another identifier taught in [0046]. Also see Fig. 4).”
12. Regarding claim 5, wherein the combination, LaRock teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of requests includes requests from the first processing service and a second processing service, wherein each request of the plurality of requests comprises a respective event string, and wherein each request of the plurality of requests comprises a respective event string encoded in proprietary formats for the first processing service or the second processing service ([0032 & 0039] teaches receiving task information, the information containing description and a trigger such that they may represent the event string).”
13. Regarding claim 15, it is similar to claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
14. Regarding claim 6, wherein the combination, LaRock teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the scheduler service: parses the first event string for a first event characteristic corresponding to a request source to determine that the first request is for the first processing service; and processes the first event characteristic to generate the first event identifier for the first request ([0032-0036] teaches the task management computing device receiving task information containing a description of the task, indication of whether the task if time-based, event-based, etc. and then storing the information in a task registry table such that it would require the information to be parsed. A unique identifier is then generated for the task.”
15. Regarding claim 16, it is similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
16. Regarding claim 7, wherein the combination, LaRock teaches “The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a number of the plurality of requests received; comparing the number to a threshold number; in response to the number equaling or exceeding the threshold number, determining a current date; and determining the preset time based on the current date ([0043-0047] teaches of nodes having a threshold load, and the computing device may determine a time for completing that task based on a latest time to execute the task, which may have been determined based on the current task loads on the nodes. The computing device may then determine an end time for completing the task such that it represents the current time required to complete the task, and based on the amount of time to complete the task, the computing device determines the latest time to execute the task being at least the amount of time it takes to complete the task from the end time for completing the task).”
17. Regarding claim 17, it is similar to claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
18. Regarding claim 8, wherein the combination, D teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service configuration file: parses the first event string for data errors; and generates an entity query based on the data errors ([0028-0034] teaches the generic library configuration file used to parse for errors, resulting in an indication of error and continuing the block steps as seen in Fig. 3 or 4 such that it may generate an additional query based on the error).”
19. Regarding claim 18, it is similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
20. Regarding claim 9, wherein the combination, D teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service configuration file: parses the first event identifier; and generates a query based on the first event identifier ([0027-0032] teaches parsing input received from the service(s) based on the configuration file parameters corresponding to the service in the generic client library).”
21. Regarding claim 19, it is similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
22. Regarding claim 10, wherein the combination, D teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service configuration file: retrieves data formatting parameters for the first processing service; and compares the first event string for the data formatting parameters ([0027-0029] teaches validating the input received from the service per the parameters stored in the configuration file for the corresponding service and then binds the parameters).”
23. Regarding claim 20, it is similar to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
24. Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service configuration file: parses the first event string for data errors (D [0031] teaches parsing for errors); and processes the first event string using an event-specific protocol (LaRock [0032-0036] teaches processing task information for event triggers).”
25. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRock, Pollack, To, and D as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Shishkov et al. Pub. No. US 2014/0244498 A1 (hereafter Shishkov).
26. Regarding claim 12, the combination does not explicitly teach that the task submitted to a processing service is for a user.
Shishkov teaches of a banking system directed to a user submitting tasks/requests to be processed such that it teaches the limitation “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service is processed by: determining a user profile for the first processing service corresponding to the first request; retrieving user account data for the user profile ([0022-0023] teaches financial transactions made by a user and may determine their account based on the information received); and determining adjustments to the user account data based on the first request ([0024-0031] teaches linking of payer with payee and possibly facilitate a transfer of funds from or to the user account if requested and displaying transaction feed).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Shishkov with the combination of LaRock, To, and D to implement a system for the processing service processing a request for a user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to show that the processing services process user requests such as bank transactions. Together, Shishkov, in combination with LaRock, To, and D teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of the invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
27. Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches “The method of claim 2, wherein the first processing service is processed by: writing user account data to a staging database; aggregating the user account data to generate a status report; and copying the status report to live databases for consumption by application programming interfaces ([0044-0053] teaches a feed of transactions by retrieving the transaction information from a financial institution and then organized for displaying, such that the data must have been implicitly staged within a feed database and accessed by an API as implied in [0065].”
References not cited but are pertinent to the art are as follows:
US 20190340025 A1
teaches
TASK SCHEDULING, EXECUTION AND MONITORING
US 20230015780 A1
teaches
Event Driven Data Processing System And Method
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON A NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (10am-6pm).
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.
/BRANDON NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights