Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 05/21/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 05/21/2024 are accepted.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
retrieving a manifest file from a work queue, the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads;
generating a plurality of processing configurations corresponding to the plurality of workloads, a processing configuration of the plurality of processing configurations associated with scheduling execution of one or more tasks for a workload of the plurality of workloads;
generating a processing pipeline definition of the manifest file, the processing pipeline definition comprising the plurality of processing configurations; and
registering the processing pipeline definition with a pipeline definition registry of a network-based database system to generate a definition registration.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a system comprising: mentally and/or via pen/paper generating a plurality of processing configurations corresponding to the plurality of workloads, a processing configuration of the plurality of processing configurations associated with scheduling execution of one or more tasks for a workload of the plurality of workloads; mentally and/or via pen/paper generating a processing pipeline definition of the manifest file, the processing pipeline definition comprising the plurality of processing configurations; and mentally and/or via pen/paper registering/recording the processing pipeline definition with a pipeline definition registry… to generate a definition registration.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:… of a network-based database system” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f, h).
“retrieving a manifest file from a work queue, the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitation or combination of limitations to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:… of a network-based database system” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f, h).
“retrieving a manifest file from a work queue, the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 11 and 21 are method and medium claims corresponding to system claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 11 and 21 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 11 and 21, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: updating the processing pipeline definition to include at least one initial configuration associated with the retrieval of the manifest file.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: configuring a first compute node associated with a compute service manager of the network-based database system to perform the retrieval of the manifest file based on the at least one initial configuration.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: configuring a second compute node associated with an execution platform of the network-based database system to perform the execution of the one or more tasks based on the plurality of processing configurations.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: updating the definition registration to include pipeline type information associated with a processing pipeline type of a plurality of available processing pipeline types.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: instantiating an instance of the processing pipeline definition, the instance to configure a processing pipeline of the processing pipeline type
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: reserving one or more compute resources of a compute node based at least on the processing pipeline type, the compute node to perform the execution of the one or more tasks.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: configuring the plurality of processing configurations as a list of processing steps in the processing pipeline definition.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: pairing the processing pipeline definition with a source monitor function.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites the operations comprising: executing the source monitor function to monitor at least one table associated with the plurality of workloads; detecting the at least one table includes updated data based on the monitoring; and updating the manifest file in the work queue based on the updated data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 12-20, and 22-30:
Claims 12-20, and 22-30 are method and medium claims corresponding to system claims 2-10 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 12-20, and 22-30 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2-10.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19, 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsi et al. (US 20130227573 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Freese et al. (US 20070250600 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Jagadeesh (US 20180024863 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A system comprising, (D1, title, abstract).
at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising, (D1, figure 5.).
retrieving a manifest file… , the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads, (D1, figs. 1-2 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, disclose configuration system 104 of D1 receiving/accessing a manifest file… , the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads (e.g. plurality of pipelines to process data from source to destination, see figure 1, element 102 having plurality of pipelines)).
generating a plurality of processing configurations corresponding to the plurality workloads, a processing configuration of the plurality of processing configurations associated… one or more tasks for a workload of the plurality of workloads (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037 disclose configuration system 104 of D1 receiving/accessing a manifest file, and generating a framework that includes a plurality of processing configurations (e.g. metadata indicative of physical mapping, metadata reflective of data source binding types, store types, pipeline metadata) corresponding to the plurality workloads (e.g. pipelines as shows in figure 1, element 102), a processing configuration of the plurality of processing configurations associated… one or more tasks (e.g. pipelines) for a workload of the plurality of workloads (e.g. plurality of pipelines to process data from source to destination, see figure 1, element 102 having plurality of pipelines).).
generating a processing pipeline definition of the manifest file, the processing pipeline definition comprising the plurality of processing configurations, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037 disclose configuration system 104 of D1 receiving/accessing a manifest file, and generating a framework that includes a plurality of processing configurations (e.g. metadata indicative of physical mapping, metadata reflective of data source binding types, store types, pipeline metadata) corresponding to the plurality workloads (e.g. pipelines as shows in figure 1, element 102), and furthermore generating a processing pipeline definition (e.g. generate flow logic package for each pipeline based on metadata/configuration generated from manifest file) of the manifest file, the processing pipeline definition comprising the plurality of processing configurations (e.g. plurality of flow logic package).
and registering the processing pipeline definition with a pipeline definition registry of a network-based database system… , (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037 disclose deploying/registering the processing pipeline definition (e.g. deploy package) with a pipeline definition registry of a network-based database system (e.g. data pipeline system 102).).
D1 disclose retrieving manifest file; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - retrieving [file] from a work queue… [registering entry/task/file] to generate a definition registration.
D2 (claim 7, 0013-0014) discloses known methods of retrieving file/s from a work queue, and … registering entry/task/file to generate a definition registration/queue entry.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating/registering queue/database entry and retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [configuration associated] with scheduling execution of [tasks].
D3 (006-0027) discloses known methods configuration/schedule associated with scheduling execution of [tasks].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3. This would have been obvious with predicable results of retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising: updating the processing pipeline definition to include at least one initial configuration…, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037, 0055 disclose deploying/registering the processing pipeline definition (e.g. deploy package), and updating the processing pipeline definition (e.g. flow packages to include updated configuration file 134 and are also updatable based on new metric data and retrieved manifest file ) at least one initial configuration…).
D1 disclose retrieving manifest file; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - configuration associated with the retrieval of the [object/file].
D2 (claim 7, 0065-0067, 0078) discloses providing GetMessage method (E.g. configuration) for retrieving files/objects from a work queue..
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating/registering queue entry and retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
to perform the retrieval of the manifest file, (D1, figs. 1-2 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, disclose configuration system 104 of D1 receiving/accessing a manifest file… , the manifest file comprising metadata associated with a plurality of workloads (e.g. plurality of pipelines to process data from source to destination, see figure 1, element 102 having plurality of pipelines)).
As noted above, D1 discloses retrieval manifest file; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - configuring a first compute node associated with a compute service manager of the network-based database system to [perform the retrieval of file] based on the at least one initial configuration.
D2 (claim 7, 0065-0067, 0078) discloses providing EAI queue application program interface in EAI system to access EAI queue, the interface including GetMessage method (E.g. configuration) for retrieving files/objects from a work queue which reads configuring a first compute node (e.g. providing API to the system/client) associated with a compute service manager of the network-based database system (e.g. EAI queue/database) to perform the retrieval of file based on the at least one initial configuration (E.g. GetMessage method).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating/registering queue entry and retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising… to perform the execution of the one or more tasks based on the plurality of processing configurations, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037 discloses deploying packages to perform data processing from source to destination which reads on to perform the execution of the one or more tasks (e.g. data processing pipelines) based on the plurality of processing configurations (E.g. flow packages)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - configuring a second compute node associated with an execution platform of the network-based database system…
D2 (claim 7, 0065-0067, 0078) discloses providing API having AddMessage, UpdateMessaeg, DeleteMessaeg method for updating the definition registration/entry in the queue/database to include various data, where API is accessible via client or server which reads on configuring a second compute node (e.g. server or client being able to access API) associated with an execution platform of the network-based database system
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating/registering queue entry and retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 further incorporated.
D1 fails to expressly disclose - the operations comprising: updating the definition registration to include pipeline type information associated with a processing pipeline type of a plurality of available processing pipeline types.
D2 (claim 7, 0065-0067, 0078) discloses AddMessage, UpdateMessaeg, DeleteMessaeg method for updating the definition registration/entry in the queue/database to include various data. The examiner notes that “pipeline type information associated with a processing pipeline type of a plurality of available processing pipeline types” is merely non-functional descriptive material and is properly construed as data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating/registering queue entry and retrieving files from queue/storage as disclosed by D2 and as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising: instantiating an instance of the processing pipeline definition, the instance to configure a processing pipeline of the processing pipeline type, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037 discloses instantiating/generating/deploying an instance of the processing pipeline definition (e.g. data flow package), the instance to configure a processing pipeline of the processing pipeline type (e.g. data flow package defines pipeline data processing including source, middle stages, and final destination)).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising: configuring the plurality of processing configurations as a list of processing steps in the processing pipeline definition, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0032-0037, discloses generating/configuring/deploying processing configurations (e.g. manifest/metadata) as a list of processing steps (e.g. data flow logic package in xml) in the processing pipeline definition).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising: pairing the processing pipeline definition with a source monitor function, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0032-0037, discloses deploying/pairing the processing pipeline definition (e.g. flow package) on configuration system, where configuration system monitors the pipelines system 102 during operation.).
As per claims 11-16, 18-19, 21-26, and 28-29:
Claims 11-16, 18-19, 21-26, and 28-29 are method and medium claims corresponding to system claims 1-6, and 8-9 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 11-16, 18-19, 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1-6, and 8-9.
Claims 7, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsi et al. (US 20130227573 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Freese et al. (US 20070250600 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Jagadeesh (US 20180024863 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Tiku et al. (US 20250348357 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claims 7, 17, and 17, the rejection of claim 6, 16, and 26 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the compute node to perform the execution of the one or more tasks, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0035-0037, 0045 discloses instantiating/generating/deploying an instance of the processing pipeline definition (e.g. data flow package) on to servers for execution).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - the operations comprising: reserving one or more compute resources of a compute node based at least on the processing pipeline type.
D4 (0045, 0060) discloses known method for reserving one or more compute resources of a compute node based at least on the processing pipeline type (e.g. urgent task/application).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious with predicable results of reserving computing resources for urgent tasks/application as disclosed by D4.
Claims 10, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsi et al. (US 20130227573 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Freese et al. (US 20070250600 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Jagadeesh (US 20180024863 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Somayaji (US 20240205190 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Kottapalli (US 20200374203 A1, referred herein after as D6).
As per claim 10, 20, and 30, the rejection of claims 9, 19, and 30 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the operations comprising: executing the source monitor function to monitor … [performance] associated with the plurality of workloads, (D1, figs. 1-4 and accompanying text, 0026, 0029, 0032-0037, discloses deploying/pairing the processing pipeline definition (e.g. flow package) on/with configuration system, where configuration system monitors the pipelines system 102 during operation of the plurality of pipelines (e.g. workloads).).
D1 discloses monitoring; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - [monitor]at least one table… detecting the at least one table includes updated data based on the monitoring;
D5 (0031) discloses known method - [monitor]at least one table… detecting the at least one table includes updated data based on the monitoring.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of detecting updates in a table as disclosed by D5.
D1/D2 discloses manifest file and files in work queue/database; however, D1/D2 fails to expressly disclose - and updating the manifest file in [system] based on the updated data.
D6 (0021) discloses known method for updating the manifest file based on the updated data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D6. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating manifest files based on various updates as disclosed D6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
OPTIMIZATION OF A PIPELINE OF SERVICES
DOCUMENT ID
US 20240028405 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2024-01-25
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights