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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 15 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are directed to publishing and subscribing to topics. Specifically, the claims recite receiving data that satisfies a set of data parameters using a publish- subscribe topic, the publish-subscribe topic being a logical channel for receiving a plurality of data streams from a plurality of computing nodes in a distributed computing environment, the plurality of data streams comprising the data; storing the one or more containerized layers in a container registry; assembling one or more containerized layers, the one or more containerized layers comprising the data, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of deploying the one or more containerized layers in a container at a computing node of the plurality of computing nodes by downloading the one or more containerized layers to the computing node from the container registry and integrating the one or more containerized layers with the container. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of publishing and subscribing to topics. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of deploying the one or more containerized layers in a container at a computing node of the plurality of computing nodes by downloading the one or more containerized layers to the computing node from the container registry and integrating the one or more containerized layers with the container. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of publishing and subscribing to topics. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 16, 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of publishing and subscribing to topics. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batsakis (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230315785).
Regarding claim 1,
Batsakis teaches a system comprising:a processing device; and a memory device including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving data that satisfies a set of data parameters using a publish- subscribe topic, the publish-subscribe topic being a logical channel for receiving a plurality of data streams from a plurality of computing nodes in a distributed computing environment, the plurality of data streams comprising the data; (See figures 3 (all), 4, 5, 6, paragraphs 193, 377-378, 392, Batsakis teaches pub subscribe network)
assembling one or more containerized layers, the one or more containerized layers comprising the data; and (See figures 3 (all), 4, 5, 6, paragraphs 220, 391, Batsakis teaches indexing/assembling topics/data)
storing the one or more containerized layers in a container registry; (See paragraphs 172, 176, 207, 211, Batsakis teaches containerized components are stored and retrieved for deployment)
deploying the one or more containerized layers in a container at a computing node of the plurality of computing nodes. (See figures 3 (all), 4, 5, 6, paragraphs 390-392, Batsakis deploying the topics to the subscribers) by downloading the one or more containerized layers to the computing node from the container registry and integrating the one or more containerized layers with the container. (See paragraphs 172, 214-215, 218, Batsakis teaches containers are instantiated by pulling images from registry)
Regarding claim 2,
Batsakis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:receiving the set of data parameters from the computing node of the plurality of computing nodes; and generating, based on the set of data parameters, the publish-subscribe topic. (See figures 3 (all), paragraphs 184-186, 188, Batsakis generate topics)
Regarding claim 4,
Batsakis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operation of deploying the one or more containerized layers in the container at the computing node comprises:providing access for the computing node to the. (See paragraphs 193-195, 186, figure 3, Batsakis teaches downloading layers)
Regarding claim 5,
Batsakis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:receiving second data that satisfies a second set of data parameters using a second publish-subscribe topic, the second publish-subscribe topic being another logical channel for receiving at least one data stream from at least one of the plurality of computing nodes in the distributed computing environment, the at least one data stream being different from the plurality of data streams and the at least one data stream comprising the second data; and wherein the one or more containerized layers further comprises the second data.(See paragraphs 186, 193, 195, Batsakis teaches multiple topics can be employed)
Regarding claim 7,
Batsakis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data is first data, and wherein the operation of receiving the first data occurs during a first period of time, and wherein the operations further comprise generating another version of the one or more containerized layers by:receiving, during a second period of time, second data that satisfies the set of data parameters using the publish-subscribe topic; and assembling a second version of the one or more containerized layers, the second version of the one or more containerized layers comprising the second data. (See paragraphs 750, 910, 915, Batsakis teaches a second version of the data)
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 14 list all the same elements of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 applies equally as well to claims 8-9, 11-12, 14.
Claims 15-16, 18-19 list all the same elements of claims 1-2, 4-5, but in medium form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-2, 4-5 applies equally as well to claims 15-16, 18-19.
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) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batsakis (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230315785) in view of Marcus (U.S. Patent App Pub 20100299763).
Regarding claim 6,
Batsakis teaches the system of claim 1. Batsakis does not explicitly teach but Marcus teaches wherein the operations further comprise, prior to assembling the one or more containerized layers, detecting, based on a data parameter of the set of data parameters, that the publish-subscribe topic has expired. (See paragraphs 86-88, Marcus)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Marcus with Batsakis because both deal with pub-sub lists. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Marcus into Batsakis is that Marcus teaches that the product assures the management of workflow and data to enable traceability, control, and establishment of a context for collaborative work, while allowing active changes in the environment to accommodate the evolving needs of users, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0005] , [0027], Marcus)
Claims 13 list all the same elements of claims 6, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 6 applies equally as well to claims 13.
Claims 20 list all the same elements of claims 6, but in medium form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 6 applies equally as well to claims 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of to publishing and subscribing to topics which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to to publishing and subscribing to topics does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor” perform(s) the steps or functions of deploying the one or more containerized layers in a container at a computing node of the plurality of computing nodes by downloading the one or more containerized layers to the computing node from the container registry and integrating the one or more containerized layers with the container. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to to publishing and subscribing to topics does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of to publishing and subscribing to topics. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
-Applicant further argues “In contrast to categorizing and routing messages using topics, the amended independent claims require a container registry in which containerized layers with data received using a publish-subscribe topic are stored and from which the containerized layers can be downloaded. Thus, rather than categorizing data by topic, the independent claims require storing data via containerized layers in a container registry. Moreover, rather than providing access to data by enabling downstream components to subscribe to topics, the independent claims require downloading the containerized layers from the registry and integrating the containerized layers with a container. Similarly, paragraph [0186] of Batsakis describes a data retrieval subsystem as being implemented through intake points that generate messages from data sources, determine topics for the messages, and publish the messages to ingestion buffers. Thus, as also described above, Batsakis describes mechanisms (e.g., a data retrieval subsystem and ingestion buffers) for processing, forwarding, and categorizing data messages. But Batsakis is silent to storing containerized layers in a container registry and deploying the containerized layers in a container at a computing node by downloading the containerized layers to the computing node from the container registry and integrating the containerized layers with the container."
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to paragraphs 172, 214-215 of Bataskis which teaches In certain embodiments, one or more of the components of a data intake and query system 108 can be implemented in a remote distributed computing system. In this context, a remote distributed computing system or cloud-based service can refer to a service hosted by one more computing resources that are accessible to end users over a network, for example, by using a web browser or other application on a client device to interface with the remote computing resources. For example, a service provider may provide a data intake and query system 108 by managing computing resources configured to implement various aspects of the system (e.g., intake system 210, indexing system 212, query system 214, common storage 216, data store catalog 220, or query acceleration data store 222, etc.) and by providing access to the system to end users via a network. Typically, a user may pay a subscription or other fee to use such a service. Each subscribing user of the cloud-based service may be provided with an account that enables the user to configure a customized cloud-based system based on the user's preferences. When implemented as a cloud-based service, various components of the system 108 can be implemented using containerization or operating-system-level virtualization, or other virtualization technique. For example, one or more components of the intake system 210, indexing system 212, or query system 214 can be implemented as separate software containers or container instances. Each container instance can have certain resources (e.g., memory, processor, etc.) of the underlying host computing system assigned to it, but may share the same operating system and may use the operating system's system call interface. Each container may provide an isolated execution environment on the host system, such as by providing a memory space of the host system that is logically isolated from memory space of other containers. Further, each container may run the same or different computer applications concurrently or separately, and may interact with each other. Although reference is made herein to containerization and container instances, it will be understood that other virtualization techniques can be used. For example, the components can be implemented using virtual machines using full virtualization or paravirtualization, etc. Thus, where reference is made to “containerized” components, it should be understood that such components may additionally or alternatively be implemented in other isolated execution environments, such as a virtual machine environment.... [0214] The indexing system manager 402 can handle resource management, creation/destruction of indexing nodes 404, high availability, load balancing, application upgrades/rollbacks, logging and monitoring, storage, networking, service discovery, and performance and scalability, and otherwise handle containerization management of the containers of the indexing system 212. In certain embodiments, the indexing system manager 402 can be implemented using Kubernetes or Swarm. [0215] In some cases, the indexing system manager 402 can monitor the available resources of a host computing device and request additional resources in a shared resource environment, based on workload of the indexing nodes 404 or create, destroy, or reassign indexing nodes 404 based on workload. Further, the indexing system manager 402 system can assign indexing nodes 404 to handle data streams based on workload, system resources, etc. These sections teaches Kubernetes/Swarm orchestration which h requires pulling of containing images from a registry to deploy containers. The containerized component of storage is in the containerized process as described and the downloading container images to deploy them. Therefore, the prior art of record teaches the argued limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Sammer, U.S. Patent 11294941, teaches systems and methods are described for preprocessing data later ingested into an indexing system. The preprocessing can include receiving messages published to a first publish-subscribe messaging system, the messages containing raw machine data generated by one or more components in an information technology environment, performing one or more processing operations on at least some of the messages to generate preprocessed messages, republishing the preprocessed messages to a second publish-subscribe messaging system, and providing to the indexing system, a subset of the messages from the second publish-subscribe messaging system.
2. Nalluri, U.S. Patent App 20200112539, teaches there is provided mechanisms for configuring an MQTT client node with a topic prefix. A method is performed by the MQTT client node. The method comprises sending a request to a DHCP server for configuration. The method comprises receiving a response from the DHCP server. The response comprises configuration information and at least one prefix string defining the topic prefix to be used together with a topic by the MQTT client node when publishing data on said topic.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444