DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2025, was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Remark
The terms “machine-storage media,” “computer-storage media,” and “device-storage media” specifically exclude carrier waves, modulated data signals, and other such media, at least some of which are covered under the term “signal medium” discussed below see applicant’s specification paragraph [0115].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 8-9, 12-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABADI et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20110302583 A1 (Hereinafter “ABADI”) in view of Mares et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20150089274 A1 (Hereinafter “Mares’).
Regarding claim 1, ABADI discloses A method comprising:
grouping, by a query coordinator, a set of files to process from a shared file queue into batch (see paragraph [0018-0019], wherein the data loader component can be configured to re-partition data being loaded into the cluster into a plurality of partitions corresponding to the plurality of nodes in the cluster, partition each portion in the plurality of partitions into a plurality of smaller partitions for storing in the at least one database system on the at least node, perform bulk-loading of the plurality of smaller partitions of data into the al least one database system on the of least one node);
assigning the batch a first batch ID (see paragraph [016-0020], wherein generate a query execution plan using al least one relational operator, optimize the query execution plan by generating a specific order in which the relational operators process the data and assigning these relational operators to the plurality of database systems or the data processing framework depending on an optimization function);
storing the first batch ID in a staging area associated with the query coordinator (see paragraph [0017, 0047]);
assigning the batch with the first batch ID to a first computing resource in a network-based data system (see paragraph [0041]);
assigning the batch a second batch ID (see paragraph [016-0020], wherein generate a query execution plan using al least one relational operator, optimize the query execution plan by generating a specific order in which the relational operators process the data and assigning these relational operators to the plurality of database systems or the data processing framework depending on an optimization function);
storing the second batch ID in the staging area associated with the query coordinator (see paragraph [0017, 0047, 0194]);
ABADI fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
Mares discloses determining an error occurred at the first computing resource (see paragraph [0016-0017, 0044], wherein preforming the cleanup and rescheduling failed task implied the teaching of the removing step as claimed);
removing the first batch ID assigned to the first computing resource from the first batch ID in response to determining the error (see paragraph [0017, 0044], wherein preforming the cleanup and rescheduling failed task implied the teaching of the removing step as claimed);
re-assigning the batch with a second batch ID to a second computing resource (see paragraph [0015, 0084], wherein reassigning failed tasks from failed nodes to other available nodes); and
receiving a file registration request from the second computing resource indicating that the batch has been processed (see paragraph [0044, 0085, 0087], wherein detecting completing of tasks is determined) and
in response to verifying the file registration request is for the batch, deleting the second batch ID from the staging area associated with the query coordinator (see paragraph [0161]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ABADI to include the missing limitations, as taught by Smith, since doing so would allow the system improving the performance of a distributed job (Smith; paragraphs [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, ABADI in view of Mares further disclose at the second computing resources (Smith, see paragraph [0041, 0043]):
storing the second batch ID and information related to the batch in a second staging area (Smith, see paragraph [0015, 0065], wherein storing sate for and each job);
performing a first operator on the batch (Smith, see paragraph [0041, 0043], wherein executing the plurality of tasks which involve processing data using certain logic or operators); and
generating a checkpoint signal based on performing the first operator (Smith, see paragraph [0015, 0065]).
Regarding claim 5, ABADI in view of Mares further disclose downloading an output file including results of processing the batch from an output queue based on the file registration request (ABADI see paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, ABADI in view of Mares further disclose wherein the output file is a materialized result file (ABADI see paragraph [0010], wherein the output files generated by MapReduce jobs contain the processed and finalized results which are materialized as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, ABADI in view of Mares further disclose wherein the output file includes data corresponding to only the batch and no other batch (ABADI see paragraph [0016-0017]).
Claims 8-9 and 12-14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 5-7.
Claims 15-16 and 19-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 5-7
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 08/18/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, has been considered. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 103 rejections because the cited references do not teach or otherwise show all elements of independent claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia:
PNG
media_image1.png
442
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant's argument hinges on the assertion that the cited references do not teach or suggest the following elements:
Re-assigning a batch with a new batch ID upon failure.
Receiving a file registration request from the second computing resource.
Deleting the second batch ID from the staging area in response to a verified file registration request.
Each of these points is addressed below.
1. Re-assigning a Batch with a New Batch ID
Mares teaches a fault-tolerant job manager that supports a "failover" process for jobs. When a job fails, the job manager creates a "new job" to take over the work of the failed job. This new job is created using previously stored job information, including checkpoints and work units, to continue processing from the point of failure. This process is functionally equivalent to the claimed "re-assigning the batch with a second batch ID." The creation of a "new job" in Mares is precisely the re-assignment of the task to a different job instance, which by necessity, would be associated with a new or different identifier to distinguish it from the failed job (see par. 0194). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a new identifier for a restarted job instance. Therefore, Mares anticipates this element.
2. Receiving a File Registration Request
Abadi discloses a system where data is partitioned and processed by a plurality of database systems in a cluster. The system includes a storage component that stores information about each partition of a data processing task as it's being processed. This information can include the size and location of data and its partitions. The data processing tasks are assigned to nodes, and a TaskTracker component on each node updates the master node's JobTracker with its status through "heartbeat messages". The system can check the status of a job to determine when it has finished processing.
The claimed "file registration request from the second computing resource indicating that the batch has been processed" is merely a specific implementation of a status update or progress report. In Abadi, a
TaskTracker regularly updates a JobTracker about the completion of its assigned tasks. These status updates inform the master node that the processing is complete. The claimed "file registration request" is a predictable variation of this communication process, where the status update explicitly includes information about the processed batch. The request "indicating that the batch has been processed" is an inherent part of any system designed to track task completion (see paragraph 0041). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add specific information about the batch to a status message to indicate its completion.
See also (see paragraph [0044, 0085, 0087]
3. Deleting the Batch ID from the Staging Area
Mares discloses that a JobManager "will purge the jobs, job ids, action reports after a defined period (retention_period) has elapsed from the time the command completed". This teaches a mechanism for managing and deleting job information, including job IDs, after the job has completed. The applicant's claim of "deleting the second batch ID from the staging area" is a specific and obvious implementation of this general concept of purging completed jobs. The "staging area" is simply a logical location for storing a list of active or pending jobs. Once the system verifies a job is complete (e.g., via the file registration request) (see para. 0161), it would be an obvious design choice to immediately delete the corresponding ID rather than waiting for an arbitrary retention period. This is merely an implementation detail that does not render the invention non-obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165