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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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: the “interceptor,” “publisher,” and “relayers” in claim 8.
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.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be an “and” before the last step of the method. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the task” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the task” has been interpreted as “the tasks.” Claims 2-20 require commensurate subject matter; therefore, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaraj (US 2010/0005472) and further in view of Gassoway (US 2006/0029036).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnaraj teaches: A method for scheduling tasks, the method comprising:
receiving a work request (¶ 49, “At 210, a request to perform a task is received”);
generating tasks for carrying out the work request (¶ 50, “At 240, the task is decomposed into one or more messages representing one or more respective discrete subtask”);
storing the tasks in queues (¶ 44, “messages representing decomposed tasks can initially be placed on an outbound queue”);
retrieving the task from the queues (¶ 104, “The out-queue is a low-buildup queue where messages are immediately picked up by the process manager and, based on the type of message, the process manager invokes a respective business process handler”);
sending the tasks to at least one service performer for execution (¶ 106, “The message can be passed onto the process queue, which can be another low build-up queue from which messages are immediately picked up by the message router, which routes the message on to its destination business process nodes (e.g., subtask nodes)”).
Krishnaraj does not teach; however, Gassoway discloses: marshalling the tasks (¶ 44, “The client stub then performs marshaling (that is, a process of packaging, transporting, and unpackaging parameters between a client and a server) of the parameters (Step S602) by making calls into a library, giving a format of the data passed, having the library convert that data, and placing the data into a buffer”);
unmarshalling the retrieved tasks (¶ 44, “When the client receives the reply, it exits the critical section protecting the sequence number and unmarshals the transmitted data (Step S606)”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of marshalling the tasks; and unmarshalling the retrieved tasks, as taught by Gassoway, in the same way to the tasks stored in queues, as taught by Krishnaraj. Both inventions are in the field of processing tasks, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “marshalling the remote calls into a format that can be understood both by the server and by the client,” as indicated by Gassoway (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 2, Gassoway teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the work request is a remote procedure call (¶ 27, “The first bind packet corresponds to a unique identifier that identifies the interface that a RPC connection is going to use”).
Regarding claim 6, Gassoway teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: gathering data for performing the marshalled tasks (¶ 44, “Once all the data is unmarshaled, the server stub can call the appropriate function to perform the call (Step S604)”).
Regarding claim 7, Gassoway teaches: The method of claim 6, further comprising: assigning the marshalled tasks and providing the gathered data to relayers configured to unmarshall the tasks (¶ 44, “the server stub can call the appropriate function to perform the call (Step S604). After the server performs the call, the data that goes back to the client is marshaled (Step S605). After the data is marshaled out, all buffers allocated for the call are freed, and a reply is sent to the client”).
Claims 8, 13-16, and 20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaraj and Gassoway, as applied above, and further in view of Sawant (US 2024/0004739).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnaraj and Gassoway do not teach; however, Sawant discloses: the remote procedure call includes a flag (¶ 12, “receive RPC messages and to perform security operations and/or identity operations based on data stored in the header structures of the messages”) and wherein the method further comprises: identifying the flag in the remote procedure call (¶ 14, “The RPC messages are routed to rails and/or applications with respect to regions using header details passed from the sources in the payload of the message”); wherein the tasks are generated in response to identification of the flag (¶ 82, “At 514, a service interface function associated with the selected microservice is triggered based on routing data in the payload structure”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the remote procedure call includes a flag and wherein the method further comprises: identifying the flag in the remote procedure call; wherein the tasks are generated in response to identification of the flag, as taught by Sawant, in the same way to the remote procedure call, as taught by Krishnaraj and Gassoway. Both inventions are in the field of handling RPC calls, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “receiving and routing a remote procedure call (RPC) message from an external source,” as indicated by Sawant (abstract).
Claims 9 and 17 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 3. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10-12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaraj and Gassoway, as applied above, and further in view of Broussard (US 2005/0155044).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnaraj and Gassoway do not teach; however, Broussard discloses: the marshalling comprises: converting the tasks to bytes (¶ 6, “RMI uses object serialization to marshal and unmarshal arguments for remote object calls. Object serialization refers to the ability to read or write an entire object to and from a raw byte stream”); wherein the storing comprises storing the bytes in persistent memory (¶ 6, “It allows Java objects and primitives to be encoded into a byte stream suitable for streaming to some type of network, to a file-system, or more generally to a transmission medium or storage facility” and ¶ 22, “stored on a computer readable medium, for generating stubs needed to complete a call to a remote object in a Java technology based application or environment. The software may reside on a persistent medium such as a magnetic disk, magnetic tape, CD ROM, flash memory or other form of electrically alterable ROM”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the marshalling comprises: converting the tasks to bytes; wherein the storing comprises storing the bytes in persistent memory, as taught by Broussard, in the same way to the marshalling, as taught by Krishnaraj and Gassoway. Both inventions are in the field of marshalling tasks, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method that “allows Java objects and primitives to be encoded into a byte stream suitable for streaming to some type of network,” as indicated by Broussard (¶ 6).
Regarding claim 5, Broussard teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein the retrieving comprises: retrieving the bytes from persistent memory; wherein the unmarshalling comprises converting the retrieved bytes to the tasks (¶ 12, “On server-side 203, a tie file 122 receives the serialized byte stream sent by stub file 118 and de-serializes or un-marshals the corresponding arguments to reconstruct the objects and parameters of the remote object call”).
Claims 10-12, 18, and 19 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 4 and 5. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights