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 .
Claims 12 and 13 are currently amended, by preliminary amendment. Claims 14-20 are newly added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
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 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim language encompasses software per se.
As per claim 12, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer program product” is not provided with a physical embodiment, and is thus considered an abstract idea. In absence of any limitation tying the ‘computer program product’ to a tangible medium, this patent is considered ineligible. It is recommended that the applicant amend the claims in order to associate the computer program product with a tangible medium or hardware.
As per claim 14, it is a “computer program product” claim, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer program product” is not provided with a physical embodiment, and is thus considered an abstract idea.
As per claim 15, it is a “computer program product” claim, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer program product” is not provided with a physical embodiment, and is thus considered an abstract idea.
As per claim 16, it is a “computer program product” claim, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer program product” is not provided with a physical embodiment, and is thus considered an abstract idea.
As per claim 17, it is a “computer program product” claim, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer program product” is not provided with a physical embodiment, and is thus considered an abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik (US 9703935 B1) in view of Wang (US 20220292361 A1).
As per claim 1, Karnik discloses:
A distributed task processing method, wherein a distributed task comprises at least two sub-tasks respectively executed by at least two devices in a distributed system, wherein the at least two devices of the distributed system comprise a first device; the method comprising: reading, by a processor of the first device, data in a memory of the first device to execute a first sub-task corresponding to the first device, obtaining and storing result data of the first sub-task in the memory of the first device (“First worker 130 may be part of a group of workers that make up a distributed computing system (DCS) “, col.2, lines 59-61 ; “Memory 230 may include a dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 220 “,col.3, lines 36-38 ; "Process 500 may also include processing the task (block 535), producing a result (block 540), and transmitting the result (block 545). For example, after first worker 130 receives the indication from licensing server 140 that first worker 130 is authorized to use the application to process the task, task processing component 330 may use the application to process the task. / Additionally, or alternatively, processing the task may include transmitting a sub-task, of the task, to a different worker for the different worker to use a different application to process the sub-task on behalf of the application of first worker 130. The request may include the authentication credentials. The different worker may process the sub-task after receiving authorization to process the sub-task from licensing server 140. First worker 130 may receive, from the different worker, the result from processing the sub-task.", col.9, lines 4-19 ; Examiner Note: in order for results to be produced and transmitted they must necessarily be stored in memory)
Karnik discloses the above limitation of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the sending of the results of a sub-task’s execution by the first device to the second device being from a network card of the first device to a network card of a second device.
However, Wang discloses:
transmitting, by a network card of the first device, the result data of the first sub- task in the memory of the first device to a network card of a second device of the distributed system through network, such that the network card of the second device writes the result data of the first sub-task in a memory of the second device. ("The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to cause, together with the at least one processor, the first electronic device to: process data based on a first data processing model to generate an initial result, a data size of the initial result being smaller than a data size of the data. The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are further configured to cause, together with the at least one processor, the first electronic device to: send the initial result to a second electronic device, the initial result being adjusted at the second electronic device and based on a second data processing model to generate an adjusted result, ", 0008 ; "As can be seen from FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, in respect of model splitting and distribution design, embodiments of the present disclosure may, e.g., consider a complex data processing task composed of several (e.g., 2 or 3) simple sub-tasks.", 0062 ; " In some embodiments, the communication link may also include, but is not limited to, a device for network connection, such as a network card, a hub, a modem, a repeater, a network bridge, a switch, and a router, as well as various network connection lines, wireless links, and the like.", 0049)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Karnik with that of Wang in order to provide an initial result 115 of a smaller data size to second data processing model 122 by first data processing model 112 in order to advantageously avoid transmitting such data 105 of a larger data size to second data processing model 122 having more powerful functions, thereby shortening an original transmission delay of data 105, and further improving an overall processing speed of data 105 (Wang, [0042]).
As per claim 6, it is a distributed system (Karnik, [col.2, lines 59-60] : “First worker 130 may be part of a group of workers that make up a distributed computing system (DCS)”) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 11, it is a device (Wang, [0008] : “The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to cause, together with the at least one processor, the first electronic device to: process data based on a first data processing model to generate an initial result”) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 12, it is a computer program product (Wang, [0011] : “The computer program product is tangibly stored on a non-volatile computer-readable medium and includes machine-executable instructions”) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 13, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Wang, [0011] : “The computer program product is tangibly stored on a non-volatile computer-readable medium and includes machine-executable instructions”)) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik (US 9703935 B1) in view of Wang (US 20220292361 A1) in further view of Stengler (US 20190075194 A1).
As per claim 2, Karnik in view of Wang fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the sending of result data to a third device which executes a third sub-task.
However, Stengler discloses:
the network card of the second device writes the result data of the first sub-task in the memory of the second device comprises: reading, by a processor of the second device, the result data in the memory of the second device to execute a second sub-task corresponding to the second device; and/or transmitting, by the network card of the second device, the result data in the memory of the second device to a network card of a third device in the distributed system through network, such that the third device utilizes the result data to execute a third sub- task corresponding to the third device. ("For simplicity, and without limitation, as described herein with respect to system 100, it is assumed that each node 0-8 executes or processes at least one sub-task", 0014 ; "Messages 120 may include data, temporary results, sub-tasks, values, instructions, and/or other communications (to name just some examples) between two or more nodes 110 of a cluster.", 0013 ; "messages 120 may include processing functionality or values to be received and handled by each node 0-8 which may be related or necessary to fulfilling request 105. For example, message m3 may indicate data and/or operations related to performing a third task. Message 3 may be distributed to node 3, as shown in the example of FIG. 1.", 0015 ; "Nodes 110 may communicate with one another using any one or combinations of communication protocols or algorithms. Different communication algorithms may produce or be the product of different network topologies.", 0017 ; "Computer system 400 may further include a communication or network interface 424.", 0059)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Karnik in view of Wang with those of Stengler in order to provide a failover strategy which utilizes multiple coordinator nodes, thus avoiding potential bottlenecks and improving processing (Stengler, [0048]).
As per claim 7, it is a distributed system (Karnik, [col.2, lines 59-60]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 19, it is a computer readable non-transitory storage medium (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik (US 9703935 B1) in view of Wang (US 20220292361 A1) in further view of Stengler (US 20190075194 A1) in further view of Watanabe (US 20050166086 A1).
As per claim 3, Karnik in view of Wang in further view of Stengler fully discloses the limitations of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose the sequentially writing of a result from memory to disk.
However, Watanabe discloses:
after the network card of the second device writes the result data of the first sub-task in the memory of the second device, the method further comprises: sequentially writing, by the processor of the second device, the result data in the memory of the second device in a disk of the second device ("FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram for illustrating an example of a message transmitted from the cache control apparatuses 130 and 140. FIG. 6 (A) indicates a response message 610 to transmit to the client 10 a result of executing a data-read process from the cache memory or a data-write process into the cache memory based on a request from the client 10; FIG. 6 (B) indicates a data-transfer message 620 to transmit data from the cache memory to the real-disk control apparatus 120 based on a Flush process; and FIG. 6 (C) indicates a data-transfer completion message to transfer to the storage control apparatus 110 when a data transfer to the real-disk control apparatus 120 is completed.", 0069)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Karnik in view of Wang in further view of Stengler with those of Watanabe in order to provide a cache memory having a high access speed, thus improving the performance of accessing the disk (Watanabe, [0004])
As per claim 4, Karnik in view of Wang in further view of Stengler in further view of Watanabe fully discloses the limitations of claim 4.
Furthermore, Watanabe discloses:
after sequentially writing, by the processor of the second device, the result data in the memory of the second device in the disk of the second device, the method further comprises: deleting, by the processor of the second device, the result data in the memory of the second device ("The Flush processing unit 117 is a processing unit that writes data in a status of dirty from among the data stored in the cache memory into the disk 121, and is used for making a free area in the cache memory when the free area is not sufficient in the cache memory or a usage area of the cache memory exceeds a predetermined ratio at a time of writing data into the cache memory. When making the free area in the cache memory, a selection of data to be deleted from the cache memory is made by using a method like least recently used (LRU), and when the data determined to be deleted from the cache memory is in a status of dirty, the Flush processing unit 117 is used.", 0053)
sequentially reading, after the processor of the second device receives a result data sending instruction, the result data from the disk of the second device to the memory of the second device, such that the network card of the second device transmits the result data in the memory of the second device to the network card of the third device in the distributed system through network. ("a read control unit that performs, when data, for which the client requested to read, is not stored in any cache device from among the cache devices disposed on the network, controls to read the data from the disk device, to store the data-read in a specific cache device, and to transmit the data-read to the client.", 0011)
The system of Karnik in view of Wang in further view of Stengler in further view of Watanabe would read data from the disk of the second device disk, and provide it to the cache memory of the second device (Watanabe, [0011]) in order for it to be sent to the third device (Stengler, Fig.1 / [0015]) using network cards (Wang, [0049]).
As per claim 8, it is a distributed system (Karnik, [col.2, lines 59-60]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 9, it is a distributed system (Karnik, [col.2, lines 59-60]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 14, it is a computer program product (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 15, it is a computer program product (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 16, it is a computer program product (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 5, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik (US 9703935 B1) in view of Wang (US 20220292361 A1) in further view of Das (US 20090276765 A1).
As per claim 5, Karnik in view of Wang fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the sequentially writing of a result from memory to disk.
However, Das discloses:
a storage area of the memory of the first device comprises a sub-area for storing application data; the result data of the first sub-task is stored in the sub-area of the memory; and transmitting, by the network card of the first device, the result data of the first sub-task in the memory of the first device to the network card of the second device in the distributed system through network comprises: transmitting, by the network card of the first device, the result data in the sub-area of the memory to the network card of the second device through remote direct access technology. (" the data from the buffered packets are moved into a target user buffer, e.g. address space 105, used by a task, e.g. task 103, running on that node.", 0034 ; "The adapter microcode 154, operating on a network adapter 107 of a node 101 (FIG. 1), is used to interface with the HAL layer 153 for RDMA commands, and to exchange information regarding completed operations, as well as cancelled operations. In addition, the adapter microcode 154 is responsible to fragment and reassemble RDMA messages, to copy data out of one user buffer 103 for a task running on the node 101, to adapter memory for transport to network, and to move incoming data received from the network into a user buffer for the receiving task", 0037 ; Examiner Note: the user buffer assigned to a task running on a node equates to a sub-area of memory for storing application data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Karnik in view of Wang with those of Das in order to provide a method similar to software pipelining which allows the system to register and deregister memory pages that do not exhibit temporal locality, and increase the ease with which buffers are deregistered (Das, [0042]).
As per claim 10, it is a distributed system (Karnik, [col.2, lines 59-60]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 17, it is a computer program product (Wang, [0011]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Karnowski (US 9680931 B1) – discloses a method of communication between networked devices in a local storage area network comprising forming a message for in-band communication within a local storage area network. The message includes at least one major task and one or more associated sub tasks for execution within the storage area network. In response to receiving the message, the device executes the sub tasks within the message with a processor to complete the major task and support local storage area network functionality.
Cui (US 20200319922 A1) – discloses a method comprising obtaining a first group of processing results generated from processing, by a first group of processing resources of a first device, a first group of sub-tasks in the task; performing a first AllReduce operation on the first group of processing results to obtain a first AllReduce result; obtaining a second AllReduce result from a second device, the second AllReduce result being obtained by performing a second AllReduce operation on a second group of processing results generated from processing, by a second group of processing resources of the second device, a second group of sub-tasks in the task;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS MICHAEL VINCENT whose telephone number is (703)756-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/R.M.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights