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 .
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.
Re claim 1, it recites the limitation "the stream of data" in lines 10 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “the stream of user analytics data”.
Re claim 2, the term “high scalability and availability” in the phrase “providing high scalability and availability” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high scalability and availability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the examiner considers these terms merely as scalable and available.
Re claim 6, it recites the limitation "the distributed dataflow engine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “a distributed dataflow engine”.
Claims 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 20 have same issue as rejected above in claims 1-2 and 6.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 are also rejected for being depend on rejected claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively without curing the deficiencies identified above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea under the mental process without significantly more. These claims 1-20 recites within four categories under step 1. However, these claims are directing to an abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate into a practical application under step 2A and 2B.
Re claim 1, a system comprising:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer memories;
a set of instruction stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
loading a set of user specified rules for grouping users based on rules;
receiving a stream of user analytics data via a network;
storing state information for a real-time computation workload in a cloud-managed state store separate from a processing engine used to process the stream of data;
scaling out the real-time computation workload based on a volume of the user analytics data by utilizing the cloud-managed state store to retrieve state information;
processing the stream of data using the processing engine and utilizing the retrieved state information from the cloud-managed state store to group the user analytics data into groups based on the set of user specified rules; and
storing results of processing the stream of data in the cloud-managed state store.
Re claim 1, the limitation “scaling…state information” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong I step 2A.
Under Prong II step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “one or more computer processors”; “one or more computer memories”; a set of instruction…to perform operations” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements “loading a set of user specified rules…”; “receiving a stream…”; “storing state information…”; and “storing results…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “processing the steam…” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “one or more computer processors”; “one or more computer memories”; a set of instruction…to perform operations” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements “loading a set of user specified rules…”; “receiving a stream…”; “storing state information…”; and “storing results…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “processing the steam…” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. The courts have identified merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 2, the limitation “the cloud-managed state store comprises a database service providing high scalability and availability.” is analyzed under Prong II step 2A and recites additional insignificant extra solution activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, according to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have identified storing data as well-understood, conventional, routine activity. Thus, the “Storing” function recited in the claim amounts to merely storing data which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Re claim 3, the limitation “scaling out the real-time computation workload comprises provisioning additional compute resources from a cloud provider to process the stream of data.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 4, the limitation “the operations further comprise optimizing a size of the state information by representing identifiers in the state store using integer values.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 5, the limitation “optimizing the size of the state information further comprises eliminating unnecessary fields from records in the state store.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 6, the limitation “the distributed dataflow engine comprises a framework for stateful stream processing.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting and displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 7, the limitation “the operations further comprise exposing an interface allowing retrieval of the results of processing the stream of data from the cloud-managed state store.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting and displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gracia-Tinedo et al. (U.S. 2025/0238285).
Re claim 1, Gracia-Tinedo et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 a system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; a set of instruction stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations (e.g. abstract, Figures 1 and 9 wherein these components are typical in computer system), the operations comprising: loading a set of user specified rules for grouping users based on rules (e.g. paragraphs [0128, 0135 and 0140] wherein grouping is based on the user-defined policy/rule); receiving a stream of user analytics data via a network (e.g. Figures 6-8 and paragraphs [0019-0021] with incoming data streams); storing state information for a real-time computation workload in a cloud-managed state store separate from a processing engine used to process the stream of data (e.g. Figures 1 and paragraphs [0064, 0083, and 0089] wherein the operational states or status are monitored and stored remotely for unification); scaling out the real-time computation workload based on a volume of the user analytics data by utilizing the cloud-managed state store to retrieve state information (e.g. abstract and Figures 2-8 and paragraphs [0108-0109] wherein based on the workload, the system would scaling based on the user-defined scaling policies); processing the stream of data using the processing engine and utilizing the retrieved state information from the cloud-managed state store to group the user analytics data into groups based on the set of user specified rules (e.g. abstract and Figures 2-8 and paragraphs [0022-0023] wherein stream data is processed accordingly with the scaling based on the user-defined policies and state information of the system); and storing results of processing the stream of data in the cloud-managed state store (e.g. abstract and Figures 6-7 and paragraphs [0043 and 0129] wherein output of processing stream is stored on cloud).
Re claim 2, Gracia-Tinedo et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 the cloud-managed state store comprises a database service providing high scalability and availability (e.g. paragraphs [0023, 0057, 0106 and 0109] with scaling and availability).
Re claim 3, Gracia-Tinedo et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 scaling out the real-time computation workload comprises provisioning additional compute resources from a cloud provider to process the stream of data (e.g. Figures 6-8 and paragraphs [0057, 0100 and 0109] with scaling up the resources to meet the workload).
Re claim 6, Gracia-Tinedo et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 the distributed dataflow engine comprises a framework for stateful stream processing (e.g. paragraphs [0105, 0150 and 0179] with stateful operation).
Re claim 7, Gracia-Tinedo et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 the operations further comprise exposing an interface allowing retrieval of the results of processing the stream of data from the cloud-managed state store (e.g. paragraphs [0057, 0060, 0063 and 0083-0086]).
Re claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
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) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracia-Tinedo et al. (U.S. 2025/0238285) in view of Sears et al. (U.S. 2024/0152551).
Re claim 4, Gracia-Tinedo et al. fail to disclose the operations further comprise optimizing a size of the state information by representing identifiers in the state store using integer values. However, Sears et al. disclose the operations further comprise optimizing a size of the state information by representing identifiers in the state store using integer values (e.g. paragraph [0066] wherein ID can be curtained integer values which take less space/size than non-integer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the operations further comprise optimizing a size of the state information by representing identifiers in the state store using integer values as seen in Sears et al.’s invention into Gracia-Tinedo et al.’s invention because it would simplify and reduce the storage.
Re claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracia-Tinedo et al. (U.S. 2025/0238285) in view of Sears et al. (U.S. 2024/0152551) and further in view of Ateniese et al. (U.S. 2020/0313859).
Re claim 5, Gracia-Tinedo et al. in view of Sears et al. fail to disclose optimizing the size of the state information further comprises eliminating unnecessary fields from records in the state store. However, Ateniese et al. disclose optimizing the size of the state information further comprises eliminating unnecessary fields from records in the state store (e.g. paragraph [0037] wherein unrelated/unnecessary information can be removed to save space/size/storage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add optimizing the size of the state information further comprises eliminating unnecessary fields from records in the state store as seen in Ateniese et al.’s invention into Gracia-Tinedo et al.’s invention because it would enable to reduce the storage for maintaining the information.
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0178404 discloses a computer-implemented method for receiving a first set of resource allocation data related to a first set of SRE tools and predicting a first state of a cloud environment based on the first set of resource allocation data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0017110 discloses a technique further involves allocating computing resources from the pool to the workspaces identified by the GPRs based on a set of GPR prioritization policies.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0321795 discloses techniques to perform an application programming interface (API) to identify processor settings to be used when performing one or more software workloads.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0103392 discloses apparatus includes interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine that a first resource usage of a first cluster in a first workload domain satisfies a threshold indicative of an upper limit of resource usage in the first cluster, identify a second cluster in a second workload domain having an availability based on a second resource usage represented resource usage data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0362075 discloses an automated system for allocation of resources in a cluster configured to run a search engine is disclosed. At least one master node includes a processing system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0096468 discloses network topologies and engineering, time-aware networks, time-sensitive applications, edge computing frameworks, data processing, network communication, and communication system implementations, and in particular, to techniques for providing in-transit packet detection to reduce real-time packet jitter.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0409335 discloses Multi-Access Management Services (MAMS), which is a programmable framework that provides mechanisms for the flexible selection of network paths in a multi-access (MX) communication environment, based on an application's needs.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0293994 discloses server resources in a data center are disaggregated into shared server resource pools, including a graphics processing unit (GPU) pool. Servers are constructed dynamically, on-demand and based on workload requirements, by allocating from these resource pools. According to this disclosure, GPU utilization in the data center is managed proactively by assigning GPUs to workloads in a fine granularity and agile way, and de-provisioning them when no longer needed. In this manner, the approach is especially advantageous to automatically provision GPUs for data analytic workloads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights