DETAILED ACTION
Claims 40-59 rejected under 35 USC §101 as directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 40-59 rejected under 35 USC §103.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 40-59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 40, 48, and 56
[Step 1] Claims 40, 48, and 56 recite a method, system, and/or medium for performing a process comprising steps of (1) defining a first task group and (2) defining a second task group. The claims recite a method that defines task groups; they do not recite any actions taken with said task groups or any specific computer functionality for analysis and identification of tasks for grouping.
[Step 2A – Prong One] The process recited in claims 40, 48, and 56 are directed to an abstract idea. The recited limitations (1) and (2) are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes including "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions" that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" MPEP 2106.04(a)(III). The step of (1) defining a first task group is accomplished by a human mentally making any arbitrary definition of tasks executing in a synchronous mode. The step of (2) defining a second task group is accomplished by a human mentally making any arbitrary definition of tasks executing in an asynchronous mode.
[Step 2A – Prong Two] Claims 40, 48, and 56 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements recited include computer hardware (e.g. processor and memory); these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution for of defining task groups for synchronous and asynchronous processing, without providing a particular solution or way to achieve a desired outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
[Step 2B] Claims 40, 48, and 56 do not recite a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the process comprising limitations (1) and (2) is a mental process. The additional elements recited are merely instructions to implement the mental process on a computer. Accordingly, these limitations are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited with a judicial exception (i.e. the mental process). The “judicial exception along cannot provide the improvement.” Further, "a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology." See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 41-42, 46-47, 49-50, 54-55, and 59
The additional step of defining tasks as “executed in a step mode” (41, 49), defining a task “scope” (42, 50), defining task parameters (46, 54, 59), defining tasks as “executed simultaneously” (47, 55). The claims recite a method that defines task groups; they do not recite any actions taken with said task groups or any specific computer functionality for analysis and identification of tasks for grouping. These steps do not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps are also drawn to an abstract idea as a mental process. This steps are recited without any functions specific to computer technology, thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the step includes the mental process of a human arbitrarily defining task groups and/or parameters.
Claims 43-45, 51-53, and 57-58
The additional elements of defining the type of system where task groups reside (43, 51), are deployed (44, 52, 57), and/or run (45, 53, 58) as a cloud or media processing entity are non-functional intended uses— there is no recitation of any functions performed differently based on the type of system. These limitations are merely an attempt to link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the identified limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 40, 43-45, 48, 51-53, and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodagar, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2021/0320986 A1 (hereinafter Sodagar ‘986), in view of Sodagar, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0412788 A1 (hereinafter Sodagar ‘788).
Claim 40
Sodagar ‘986 discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: define one or more task group types. Sodagar ‘986 discloses a “workflow manager of a media system” configured “to obtain a network based media processing (NBMP) workflow including a plurality of workflow tasks and a plurality of proximity parameters which indicate a plurality of desired distances between the plurality of workflow tasks and at least one of a media source and a media sink,” and “manage the NBMP workflow according to the assigned plurality of workflow tasks.” Sodagar ‘986, ¶ 7. Workflow manager 320 “instantiates each task for each function instance” and uses a “proximity array to allocate the best cloud/network resources based on the indicated distances for those tasks.” Id. at ¶ 56.
In one embodiment, the workflow manager uses a “logical entity referred to as a Task Group.” A Task Group is “a collection of tasks of function instances that are expected to run on the same cloud node/cluster.” Task Groups are “identified with a unique identifier that is unique between Task Groups and Tasks.” Id. at ¶ 62. The system provides “a method for describing groups of Task or Function instances which enables defining [a] logical group of Task or Function instances to be implemented together wherein the distance of a group of Task or Function instances are described from a source, a sink, an MPE [media processing entity], other tasks, or other task groups, wherein the distance of task groups are defined together as well as the distance of each task or function instance inside a task group is defined from the other tasks/functions instances of the same group and therefore a detailed description of the distance as well as a logical grouping of the functions are shown” (describing groups of tasks → defining task group type). Id. at ¶ 78.
Sodagar ‘986 does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more task group types comprise one or more of: a first at least one task group which enables executing a workflow comprising one or more tasks in the first at least one task group in a synchronous mode; and a second at least one task group which enables executing a sub-workflow or another workflow comprising at least one task in the second at least one task group in an asynchronous mode.
Sodagar ‘788 discloses wherein the one more task group types comprises one or more of: a second at least one task group which enables executing a sub-workflow or another workflow comprising at least one task in the second at least one task group in an asynchronous mode. Sodagar ‘788 discloses a system to “asynchronously process requests” corresponding to the Network-based Media Processing (NBMP) standard.” Sodagar ‘788, ¶ 15; See Also ¶ 70 (“Asynchronous NBMP Processing 96” allows “for asynchronous, non-immediate response to NBMP requests”). Figure 2 illustrates an “exemplary NBMP Reference Architecture” comprising an NBMP source 204 that makes “API calls to the NBMP workflow manager 206,” wherein workflow manager 206 makes “API calls to the media processing entity 212.” The API calls to the workflow manager 206 may include NBMP task function calls and NBMP link function calls that may be synchronous or asynchronous” (synchronous function calls → first task group in synchronous mode; asynchronous function calls → second task group in asynchronous mode). Id. at ¶ 25; FIG. 2.
Sodagar ‘788 discloses a second at least one task group which enables executing a sub-workflow or another workflow comprising at least one task in the second at least one task group in an asynchronous mode. Figure 3 illustrates “Asynchronous NBMP Processing Program 116 … for asynchronous processing of NBMP requests that may not need an immediate response.” A status code 202 “is returned based on receiving the function call.” The status code 202 may indicate that “the request is successfully received but may be completed later” (status code 202 → mode parameter). If indicated, the request is “performed at a later time, whereby a response to the request is performed asynchronously.” In one embodiment, program 116 “may retrieve a value corresponding to a delay in seconds,” and “perform the CreateWorkflow command once this delay has elapsed.” Id. at ¶¶ 35-39; FIG. 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task grouping NBMP system of Sodagar ‘986 to incorporate processing NBMP tasks asynchronously as taught by Sodagar ‘788. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate processing NBMP tasks asynchronously into Sodagar ‘986, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve performance because “the current NBMP design does not define any asynchronous methods,” and it is “advantageous … to add asynchronous responses to NBMP standard based Cloud processing in order to increase media processing efficiency, allow for faster and lower cost deployment of media services, and provide large scale deployment by leveraging the public, private or hybrid cloud services.” Sodagar ‘788, ¶ 16.
Claim 43
Sodagar ‘986 discloses wherein the first at least one task group and the second at least one task group reside or are executed in at least one of: a network based media processing (NBMP) source; a central cloud; or a multi-access edge computing (MEC) cloud or a sink device. NBMP system 300 comprises an NBMP source 310, NBMP workflow manager 320, one or more media processing entities (MPEs) 350, and media sink 370. Sodagar ‘986, ¶ 36; FIG. 3. One or more MPEs 350 are “configured to receive media content from the media source 360, process the media content in accordance with the workflow, that includes tasks 352, created by the NBMP workflow manager 320, and output the processed media content to the media sink 370.” Id. at ¶ 44.
Claim 44
Sodagar ‘986 discloses wherein a task group is a logical group of tasks that are deployed on a same MPE (media processing entity), or MPEs that are within a predetermined distance. In one embodiment, the workflow manager uses a “logical entity referred to as a Task Group.” A Task Group is “a collection of tasks of function instances that are expected to run on the same cloud node/cluster.” Task Groups are “identified with a unique identifier that is unique between Task Groups and Tasks.” Id. at ¶ 62. The system provides “a method for describing groups of Task or Function instances which enables defining [a] logical group of Task or Function instances to be implemented together wherein the distance of a group of Task or Function instances are described from a source, a sink, an MPE [media processing entity], other tasks, or other task groups, wherein the distance of task groups are defined together as well as the distance of each task or function instance inside a task group is defined from the other tasks/functions instances of the same group and therefore a detailed description of the distance as well as a logical grouping of the functions are shown” (describing groups of tasks → defining task group type). Id. at ¶ 78.
Claim 45
Sodagar ‘986 discloses wherein a task group comprises one or more tasks running in one or more MPEs. NBMP system 300 comprises an NBMP source 310, NBMP workflow manager 320, one or more media processing entities (MPEs) 350, and media sink 370. Sodagar ‘986, ¶ 36; FIG. 3. One or more MPEs 350 are “configured to receive media content from the media source 360, process the media content in accordance with the workflow, that includes tasks 352, created by the NBMP workflow manager 320, and output the processed media content to the media sink 370.” Id. at ¶ 44.
Claims 48 and 51-53
Claims 48 and 51-53 are rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claims 40 and 43-45; the claims are directed to a method performed by the system.
Claims 56-58
Claims 56-58 are rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claims 40 and 44-45; the claims are directed to a medium storing instructions corresponding to the method.
Claims 41, 47, 49, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodagar ‘986, in view of Sodagar ‘788, further in view of Davis, U.S. Patent No. 11,416,294 B1.
Claim 41
Davis discloses wherein the second at least one task group comprises at least one task corresponding to a subset of the workflow or the another workflow which are executed in a step
mode. Davis discloses “techniques for task processing to manage one or more resources … provided by one or more data centers” that “enable at least partial parallelization of task and workflow execution to improve the scaling and management of data center resources.” Workflows “may include sequential chains of dependent tasks and groups of one or more independent tasks that may be executed at least partially in parallel.” Davis, 3:33-4:4. A particular task or workflow “may include a sequence of two or more subtasks having a defined order,” such as “a sequence or series of dependent subtasks that are to be completed in the defined order.” The task data structure corresponding to the workflow “may include associated with the sequence of these two or more subtasks.” Id. at 11:30-63. The “subtask ordering information for the workflow” indicates that a “second subtask in the workflow … is to be performed after the first subtask is complete.” Id. at 12:11-20. Accordingly, the subtask ordering information indicates that a second subset of the workflow are executed in step sequence, i.e. asynchronously from the first subset of the workflow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task grouping NBMP system of Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788 to incorporate processing parts of a workflow in parallel and step sequences. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate processing parts of a workflow in parallel and step sequence into Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that “the management of data center resources is not necessarily bottlenecked by worker processes or other system services being able to handle only one task and/or resource management request at a time,” thereby enabling parallelization “to improve the scaling and management of data center resources.” Davis, 8:40-48.
Claim 47
Davis discloses wherein the one or more tasks in the first at least one task group that
are in the synchronous mode are executed simultaneously. Davis discloses “techniques for task processing to manage one or more resources … provided by one or more data centers” that “enable at least partial parallelization of task and workflow execution to improve the scaling and management of data center resources.” Workflows “may include sequential chains of dependent tasks and groups of one or more independent tasks that may be executed at least partially in parallel.” Davis, 3:33-4:4. The task data structure comprises “one or more task queues” that include “task data elements.” Given a first and second data element and two worker processes, a “second worker process may execute at least a portion of the second task” associated with the second task element, “while the first worker process executes at least a portion of the first task in parallel.” The first and second worker processes “execute at least a portion of these tasks in parallel, rather than executing the tasks in serial or sequential fashion, which may cause added delay” (parallel execution of portions → simultaneous execution of groups). Id. at 7:27-8:2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task grouping NBMP system of Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788 to incorporate processing parts of a workflow in parallel and step sequences. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate processing parts of a workflow in parallel and step sequence into Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that “the management of data center resources is not necessarily bottlenecked by worker processes or other system services being able to handle only one task and/or resource management request at a time,” thereby enabling parallelization “to improve the scaling and management of data center resources.” Davis, 8:40-48.
Claims 49 and 55
Claims 49 and 55 are rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claims 41 and 47; the claims are directed to a method performed by the system.
Claims 42 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodagar ‘986, in view of Sodagar ‘788, further in view of Davis, further in view of Garcia Martinez, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0301737 A1 (hereinafter Martinez).
Claim 42
Sodagar ‘986 discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to define a scope, wherein the scope comprises a local scope, … wherein a task group associated with the local scope is scheduled and instantiated by a control plane depending on the resource condition and requirements of a single workflow. Sodagar ‘986 discloses that a task group “may be a collection of tasks … that are expected to run on the same cloud node/cluster.” Sodagar ‘986, ¶ 62. Tasks are grouped wherein “each workflow or task may provide a distance from source or sink or MPE … to indicate the desired/required proximity to that source” (workflow desired/required proximity → requirements of workflow). Id. at ¶¶ 78-79. A workflow manager 320 “instantiates each task for each function instance, it uses [a] proximity array to allocate the best cloud/network resources based on the indicated desired distances for those tasks” (workflow manager → control plane; resource distance → resource condition). Id. at ¶ 56; See Also ¶ 57 (“workflow manager 320 with the help of Cloud manager may want to reallocate the task to various cloud/network resources that satisfy proximity requirements”). Accordingly, a task group associated with proximity requirements is analogous to a task group associated with a local scope.
Martinez discloses wherein the scope comprises a global scope, wherein a task group associated with the global scope is scheduled, allocated and executed based on the resource requirements corresponding to a predefined threshold number of workflows. Martinez discloses methods for “user-controlled parallel processing” wherein a user “provides user-entered parameters to define and control a parallel processing task of a dataset,” wherein the “user is able to control functionality of the parallel processing of data to improve optimization and efficiency of the parallel processing of the data in the dataset.” Martinez, ¶ 28. These user-entered parameters are user “to configure how the data workload and data processing job is partitioned and distributed.” Id. at ¶ 40. One parameter “indicates a number of workers 118 to use during a processing job,” for example a “maximum number of workers 118 that are used during a processing job” (maximum number of workers → predefined number of workflows). Id. at ¶¶ 44-45. The method enables “users to select how many resources (e.g., number of workers, number of nodes) to allocate to a specific data processing job.” Id. at ¶ 47. A distribution module 110 produces work orders comprising information including “the work allocation for the data processing operation including the number of worker modules 118 needed to complete the data processing operation.” Id. at ¶ 62.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task grouping NBMP system of Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788-Davis to incorporate the task parameters for distributing workloads as taught by Martinez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate task parameters for distributing workloads into Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788-Davis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “improve optimization and efficiency of the parallel processing of the data in the dataset” and improve the user experience by enabling “fine-tuning of the underlying operations according to each specific use case, moving away from a conventional ‘one-size fits all’ approach to data parallelization to a more flexible approach.” Martinez, ¶ 28.
Claim 50
Claim 50 is rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claim 42; the claim is directed to a method performed by the system.
Claims 46, 54, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodagar ‘986, in view of Sodagar ‘788, further in view of Garcia Martinez, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0301737 A1 (hereinafter Martinez).
Claim 46
Sodagar ‘788 discloses wherein the first at least one task group and the second at least one task group comprise one or more of following parameters: … a mode parameter for indicating whether a task group is executed in the synchronous mode or in the asynchronous mode. Figure 3 illustrates “Asynchronous NBMP Processing Program 116 … for asynchronous processing of NBMP requests that may not need an immediate response.” A status code 202 “is returned based on receiving the function call.” The status code 202 may indicate that “the request is successfully received but may be completed later” (status code 202 → mode parameter). If indicated, the request is “performed at a later time, whereby a response to the request is performed asynchronously.” In one embodiment, program 116 “may retrieve a value corresponding to a delay in seconds,” and “perform the CreateWorkflow command once this delay has elapsed.” Sodagar ‘788, ¶¶ 35-39; FIG. 3.
Martinez discloses wherein the first at least one task group and the second at least one
task group comprise one or more of following parameters: a breakable parameter for determining whether or not a connected task is splitable, when the connected task is splitable, the connected task is used to define a boundary of the at the first at least one task group and the second at least one task group; … a replicable flag parameter for indicating that the tasks within the task group are capable of being replicated by a workflow manager or the task group is capable of being divided into new task groups for new replicated tasks; or a step descriptor for enabling at least one of a stateless processing or a parallelization of a task or a task group. Martinez discloses methods for “user-controlled parallel processing” wherein a user “provides user-entered parameters to define and control a parallel processing task of a dataset,” wherein the “user is able to control functionality of the parallel processing of data to improve optimization and efficiency of the parallel processing of the data in the dataset.” Martinez, ¶ 28. These user-entered parameters are user “to configure how the data workload and data processing job is partitioned and distributed.” Id. at ¶ 40. The parameters include indicating either a “single-stage distribution” wherein the dataset is partitioned or segmented based on one distribution criteria; or “multiple-stage distribution,” wherein the input data set is partitioned or segmented on multiple distribution criteria” (distribution parameter → breakable parameter). The parameters include “recursive distribution” for performing the distribution recursively (recursive distribution parameter → replicable flag parameter). The parameters include “parallel distribution” for distribution via multiple processors (parallel distribution parameter → step descriptor). Id. at ¶ 45.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task grouping NBMP system of Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788 to incorporate the task parameters for distributing workloads as taught by Martinez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate task parameters for distributing workloads into Sodagar ‘986-Sodagar ‘788, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “improve optimization and efficiency of the parallel processing of the data in the dataset” and improve the user experience by enabling “fine-tuning of the underlying operations according to each specific use case, moving away from a conventional ‘one-size fits all’ approach to data parallelization to a more flexible approach.” Martinez, ¶ 28.
Claim 54
Claim 54 is rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claim 46; the claim is directed to a method performed by the system.
Claim 59
Claim 59 is rejected utilizing the aforementioned rationale for Claim 46; the claim is directed to a medium storing instructions corresponding to the method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D MILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3194. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at (571)270-3180. 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.
/FRANK D MILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights