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 22-24, 30-32 and 37 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.
The claims have a couple of tests. A “short” source is selected if “the latency not exceeding the short threshold” and the “long” source is selected if “the latency satisfying the long threshold latency.” It is unclear if the thresholds are different or what satisfying and not exceeding means. It is unclear if both or neither can be selected, and it is unclear which term means above, equal or below the threshold. Some clarity in the amendment and remarks would be appreciated.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 29-32, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vohra et al. (11,693,713) in view of Wang et al. (12,189,499).
For claims 21, 29, 36, Vohra teaches (abstract) a system and related method (col. 2, lines 10-30) comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system (background, summary and claims) to:
receive a self-service request (col. 32, lines 15-35) indicating a requested network event (col. 18, lines 15-60) from a global data stream;
determine a latency (col. 3, lines 15-40) for a self-service event request indicating the requested network event (col. 36, lines 35-65) from the global data stream; and
distribute a network event for the self-service request (col. 31, line 45 – col. 32, line 10) from a long-retention network event data source (col. 29, lines 40-60) or a short-retention network event data source (col. 28, lines 25-45; not spelled out as such but separate well known short term storage) by selecting between the long-retention network event data source and the short-retention network event data source for the requested network event (col. 36, lines 35-65) based on a comparison between the latency (col. 59, line 55 – col. 60, line 10) and a threshold (col. 37, line 60 – col. 38, line 15) latency (col. 59, lines 30-55).
Vohra does not expressly disclose the global data stream. Wang teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) regarding the global data stream (col. 32, lines 5-35) and the particulars of selecting between the long and short retention sources (col. 21, line 35 – col. 22, line 15; col. 34, line 10 – col. 36, line 25). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Wang in order to provide improvements to the system (background).
For claims 22, 30, Vohra teaches to select the short-retention network event data source for the requested network event in response to the latency not exceeding the threshold latency (col. 65, lines 15-60).
For claims 23, 31, Vohra teaches to select the long-retention network event data source for the requested network event in response to the latency satisfying the threshold latency (col. 64, line 55 – col. 65, line 15).
For claims 24, 32, 37, Vohra teaches to cause the system to:
determine a short-retention network event threshold latency and a long-retention network event threshold latency (col. 59, line 55 – col. 60, line 10);
select the short-retention network event data source for the requested network event in response to the latency not exceeding the short-retention network event threshold latency (col. 65, lines 15-60); and
select the long-retention network event data source for the requested network event in response to the latency satisfying the long-retention network event threshold latency (col. 64, line 55 – col. 65, line 15).
Claim(s) 25, 26, 33, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vohra and Wang as applied to claims 21, 29, 36 above, and further in view of Princehouse et al. (11,934,409).
For claim 25, Vohra and Wang do not expressly disclose identify a low-latency fanned data stream as the short-retention network event data source. Princehouse teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 6, line 50 – col. 7, line 35). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Pricehouse in order to provide improvements to the data storage operations.
For claims 26, 33, 38, Pricehouse teaches to broadcast one or more network events to consumer application servers utilizing the low-latency fanned data stream (col. 11, line 45 – col. 12, line 55).
Claim(s) 27, 34, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vohra and Wang as applied to claims 21, 29, 36 above, and further in view of Parekh et al. (2023/0,393,947).
For claims 27, 34, 39, Vohra teaches to identify a batch distribution storing network event as the long-retention network event data source, but does not expressly disclose the batch distribution data lake (col. 42, line 30 – col. 44, line 25). Parekh teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (Para 110). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Parekh in order to provide improvements to data storage (Para 3).
Claim(s) 28, 35, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vohra and Wang as applied to claims 21, 29, 36 above, and further in view of Pfeifer et al. (10,862,775).
For claims 28, 35, 40, Vohra and Wang do not expressly disclose the elements. Pfeifer teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) including determine the latency of the self-service event request based on a processing time requirement or a delivery time requirement corresponding to one or more self-service event requests (col. 8, lines 10-65). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Pfeifer in order to provide improvements to the system (background).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights