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 .
This action is in response to Amendment filed 12/15/2025.
Claims 21-22, 28-29 and 35-36 have been amended, and claims 1-20 were previously canceled. Currently, claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to Specification filed on 12/15/2025 has been accepted. As a result, the previous objection to the Specification regarding the first paragraph under the Background has been withdrawn.
Amendments to claims are not effective to overcome the double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Patent No. 11,593,398. Therefore, the double patent rejection with respect that patent is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 10-13) with respect to independent claim 21 and similarly applied to independent claims 28 and 35 that Borthakur fails to teach feature “configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Borthakur teaches a system for accessing data of a file system (i.e., data collection) from applications (i.e., processes) coded in different languages through an application program interface (see Fig. 2 and [0026]), wherein each of the processes (i.e., applications) is configured to access the data of the file system (e.g., data from storage devices) though calls to the API wherein the API includes a plurality of language-specific interfaces each is used to interact with an application coded in particular language (see [0047]-[0048]). As disclosed, the file system (i.e., data collection) is configured to provide access to a process (i.e., an application coded in a particular language) through API call(s) and/or a language-specific interface that is selected based on the particular language associated with the application process, wherein the configuration of linking or associating an application process to an appropriate language-specific interface as disclosed can be interpreted as a data configuration recited.
As discussed, Borthakur obviously teaches feature “configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface” as broadly recited and indicated by Applicant.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 13-14) with respect to 101 rejection of claims 21-40 for being directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) that the claims feature various interfaces with includes both language-specific interfaces and (as amended) language-independent access methods that are inherently computer technologies and the configuration of data according to languages of those interfaces would not be performable in a human mind, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim appears to recite an invention concept or abstract step(s) that can be planned in the human mind (e.g., abstract idea of configuring a data collection to be accessed through a plurality of language-specific interfaces)) rather than specific steps that configured to run in a computer system to configure a data collection according to its plurality of language-specific interfaces.
In addition, the claimed invention does not realized any practical application and/or enhancement/improvement and/or inventive step(s), since it is unclear how the data collection and/or a plurality of language-specific interfaces are implemented and how the data collection as implemented is actually used in the system and provides some benefit or enhancement in a computer system/environment.
As such, the claimed invention as broadly recited is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term “language independent interface” is recited in line 2 of claim 23, in line 1 of claim 30, and in line 2 of claim 37 but not mentioned or described in the Specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,593,398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 6, 15 and 19 of the earlier patent anticipate or suggest all limitations as recited in claims 21, 28 and 35 of this application.
In particular, the mapping of the rejection is as follows:
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,593,398
21. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
6. (comprising limitations of claim 1 and claim 6) A method, comprising:
accessing a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection, the accessing comprising:
performing by a computer including multiple sockets each including multiple processor cores:
executing a workload within a platform independent virtual environment of the computer by an application developed using a first programming language, wherein executing comprises:
optimizing, at runtime, by a runtime cross-language compiler, at least a portion of the application and one or more dynamically selected data functionalities developed using a second programming language and configured to provide a language specific interface to access to a data collection storing data in a memory of the computer; (see claim 1)
configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface; and
selecting at runtime, based at least in part on one or more predicted resource requirements of the workload, a first configuration specifying the one or more dynamically selected data functionalities; and
configuring the data collection according to the first configuration, wherein after said configuring, the data of the data collection is accessible according to the dynamically selected data functionalities as specified in the first configuration; (see claim 6)
accessing the data collection via a language independent access method from the language-specific interface.
accessing, by the application via the one or more dynamically selected data functionalities, the data collection, wherein said accessing the data collection comprises the application executing one or more methods of a data access application programming interface (API) configured to access the data collection via the language-specific language. (see claim 1)
Similarly,
Claim 28 rejected by Claim 15
Claim 35 rejected by Claim 19
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 30 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, the recited “language independent interface” in line 2 should be “a language independent interface” for being in better form.
Regarding claim 30, the recited “language independent interface” in line 1 should be “a language independent interface” for being in better form.
Regarding claim 37, the recited “language independent interface” in line 2 should be “a language independent interface” for being in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 21, 28 and 35, these claims recite limitation “accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface”, which is not supported by the Specification and, as such, being directed to new matter.
According to the Specification, adaptive data collections may provide language-independent access to content and data functionalities (i.e., an adaptive data collection may be implemented once in one language but may be accessed from multiple programming languages) (see Specification, [0024] and [0037]). However, the Specification does not mention “a language-independent access method”, “a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface”, or “accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” as recited.
Other dependent claims are rejected as incorporating and failing to resolve the deficiencies of the rejected independent claims 21, 28 and 35 upon which they depend correspondingly.
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 21-40 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites no relation between “a data configuration” and “a language-independent access method”. Therefore, it is unclear how the data collection can be accessed via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface as recited. In addition, it is unclear what is “data collection functionality”, how “data collection functionality” can be provided to the language-specific interface as broadly recited, and how the “data collection functionality” is used after the configuration. Also, since the term “language-independent access method” is not supported in the Specification, the limitation “accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” appears to be indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the data" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the processor cores" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites no relation between “a data configuration” and “a language-independent access method”. Therefore, it is unclear how the data collection can be accessed via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface as recited. In addition, it is unclear what is “data collection functionality”, how “data collection functionality” can be provided to the language-specific interface as broadly recited, and how the “data collection functionality” is used after the configuration. Also, since the term “language-independent access method” is not supported in the Specification, the limitation “accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” appears to be indefinite.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the method” in lines 2-3 and the limitation "the processor cores" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that there is another instance of “the method” in line 6.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites no relation between “a data configuration” and “a language-independent access method”. Therefore, it is unclear how the data collection can be accessed via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface as recited. In addition, it is unclear what is “data collection functionality”, how “data collection functionality” can be provided to the language-specific interface as broadly recited, and how the “data collection functionality” is used after the configuration. Also, since the term “language-independent access method” is not supported in the Specification, the limitation “accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” appears to be indefinite.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “the other data collection functionality” in line 4 and the limitation "the data" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Other dependent claims are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the rejected independent claims 21, 28 and 35 upon which they depend correspondingly.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/concept of accessing and configuring data without significantly more.
The claims recite an abstract idea of accessing/configuring data based on broadly recited steps of accessing and configuring, which are broadly recited steps/concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pencil and paper and directed to mental processes grouping of abstract ideas . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other additional elements including genetic computer components and common computer functionality (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying) for implementing the abstract idea are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements include only generic/common computer components (e.g., memory, processor, program instructions, etc.) and generic/common computer functions (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying), which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Abstract idea analysis as follows:
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant claims, claims 21-27 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 28-34 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 35-40 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing program instructions (i.e., an article of manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
Step 2a Prong 1 (claims 21, 28 and 35):
The following limitations recited in claims 21, 28, and 35 are abstract ideas that fall under mental processes:
configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface (the step of configuring as broadly recited without specifying how to configure can be mentally performed by the human mind and/or with the aid of pencil and paper, such as simply thinking about configuring).
All the limitations above are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2 (Claims 21, 28, and 35):
The following limitations in claims 21, 28 and 35 are additional elements:
accessing a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection (this step of accessing as broadly recited without specifying how is directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra solution activity),
accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface (this step of accessing as broadly recited without specifying how is directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra solution activity),
a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors to implement a platform- independent virtual environment (these elements are directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing or applying the abstract idea), and
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a platform-independent virtual environment to perform (these elements are directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or insignificant extra-solution activity, which amount to no more than components used to execute mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2b (Claims 21, 28 and 35):
The following limitations in claims 21, 28 and 35 are additional elements:
accessing a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection (this step of accessing as broadly recited without specifying how is directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra solution activity),
accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface (this step of accessing as broadly recited without specifying how is directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra solution activity),
a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors to implement a platform- independent virtual environment (these elements are directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing or applying the abstract idea), and
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a platform-independent virtual environment to perform (these elements are directed to generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions, and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 22, 29 and 36, claims 22, 29 and 36 depend on claims 21, 28 and 35 respectively. As such, claims 22, 29 and 36 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 21, 28 and 35.
In addition, claims 22, 29 and 36 include additional elements:
wherein the data collection comprises data and one or more language-independent access methods, and wherein the provided data collection functionality comprises access to the data via at least a portion of the one or more language-independent access methods (the limitation specifying data and methods associated with data collection and describing function of the provided data collection functionality, which is directed to mere descriptive data)
These are additional elements directed to mere data/information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 37, claims 23, 30 and 37 depend on claims 21, 28 and 35 respectively. As such, claims 23, 30 and 37 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 21, 28 and 35.
In addition, claims 23, 30 and 37 include additional elements:
wherein language independent interface is developed using a first programming language, and the data collection is accessed via the language-specific interface by an application developed using a second programming language different from the first programming language (the limitation appears to specify information (e.g., programming languages) about the language independent interface and an application used to access the data collection without specifying how they function and/or interact, which are directed to mere descriptive data).
These are additional elements directed to mere data/information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 38, claims 24, 31 and 38 depend on claims 21, 28 and 35 respectively. As such, claims 24, 31 and 38 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 21, 28 and 35.
In addition, claims 24, 31 and 38 include additional elements:
reconfiguring the data collection according to another configuration to provide another data collection functionality, wherein the other configuration is selected based at least in part on performance information collected during execution of a workload accessing the data collection functionality (the step of reconfiguring and selecting as broadly recited without specifying how to configure or select can be mentally performed by the human mind and/or with the aid of pencil and paper, such as simply thinking about configuring and selecting).
These are additional elements directed to mental process (i.e., abstract idea), which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, claims 25, 32 and 39 depend on claims 24, 31 and 35 respectively. As such, claims 25, 32 and 39 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 24, 31 and 35.
In addition, claims 25, 32 and 39 include additional elements:
wherein the accessing is performed by a computer comprising a plurality of processor sockets individually comprising a plurality of processor cores (this element is directed to generic computer or generic computer components for performing generic computer function (e.g., accessing data) or insignificant extra-solution activity), and
wherein the data collection functionality and the other data collection functionality individually comprise one or more of:
an operating system default NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a single socket NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
an interleaved NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a replicated NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a compression scheme for the data of the data collection;
an indexing scheme for data elements of the data collection; or
a data synchronization scheme for the data collection (these limitations are directed to mere information regarding the data collection functionality).
These are additional elements directed to generic computer or computer components for performing generic computer function and mere descriptive information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 26, 33 and 40, claims 26, 33 and 40 depend on claims 21, 28 and 35 respectively. As such, claims 26, 33 and 40 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 21, 28 and 35.
In addition, claims 26, 33 and 40 include additional elements:
wherein the data collection is configured to organize data of the data collection as one of a bag, a set, an array, or a map (the limitation specifying types of data collection, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, claims 27 and 34 depend on claims 21 and 28 respectively. As such, claims 27 and 34 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 21 and 28.
In addition, claims 27 and 34 include additional elements:
wherein accessing the data collection is performed as part of execution of a workload on a computer implementing the method, and wherein the data configuration is further selected according to one or more predicted resource requirements of the workload, the one or more predicted resource requirements predicted based at least in part on one or more of:
a specification of the computer implementing the method, comprising at least one of a size of a memory, a maximum bandwidth between hardware components of the computer, or a maximum computing capacity available on each of the processor cores of the computer;
a specification of performance characteristics of the data collection based at least in part on one or more performance counters of the computer; or
information collected during one or more profiling runs of the workload (these limitations are directed to descriptive information regarding accessing the data collection and selecting the data configuration rather than specifying how the data collection is accessed or configured).
These are additional elements directed to mere descriptive data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Claims 21-40 (effective filing date 10/19/2018) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borthakur et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0131955, Publication date 06/16/2005).
As to claim 21, Borthakur et al. teaches:
“A computer-implemented method” (see Borthakur et al., Abstract), comprising:
“accessing a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2, [0026] and [0047]-[0048] for accessing data (e.g., files) from the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) via API 214, wherein API 214 consists of a plurality of language-specific interfaces), the accessing comprising:
“configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface, wherein each language-specific interface provides a configuration of the data collection for interacting with an application); and
“accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] for accessing file system content from application process(es) via through calls to API 214 (i.e., a plurality of language-specific interfaces), wherein each API call can be interpreted as a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 22, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 21 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection comprises data and one or more language-independent access methods, and wherein the provided data collection functionality comprises access to the data via at least a portion of the one or more methods of the language-independent interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2, [0026] and [0047] for allowing access to the file system (i.e., data collection) though calls to an application programming interface (API) wherein each call represents a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 23, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 21 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein language independent interface is developed using a first programming language, and the data collection is accessed via the language-specific interface by an application developed using a second programming language different from the first programming language” (see Borthakur et al., [0048]-[0049] wherein the programming language independent interface provides access to file system data independently of the programming language or format of the application or the associated API (i.e., language-specific interface)).
As to claim 24, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 21 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“reconfiguring the data collection according to another configuration to provide another data collection functionality, wherein the other configuration is selected based at least in part on performance information collected during execution of a workload accessing the data collection functionality” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface, wherein each language-specific interface provides a configuration of the data collection for interacting with an application).
As to claim 25, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 24 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the accessing is performed by a computer comprising a plurality of processor sockets individually comprising a plurality of processor cores” (see Borthakur et al., [0017]), and
“wherein the data collection functionality and the other data collection functionality individually comprise one or more of:
an operating system default NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a single socket NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
an interleaved NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a replicated NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a compression scheme for the data of the data collection;
an indexing scheme for data elements of the data collection; or
a data synchronization scheme for the data collection” (see Borthakur et al., [0052] wherein data in the file system can be compressed, which suggests that the file system must include a compression scheme for the data of the file system).
As to claim 26, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 21 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection is configured to organize data of the data collection as one of a bag, a set, an array, or a map” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 3 and [0037] wherein the file system (i.e., data collection) stores or organizes data as a set of files and named streams).
As to claim 27, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 21 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“accessing the data collection is performed as part of execution of a workload on a computer implementing the method” (see Borthakur et al., [0049] for accessing file system data based on function calls (e.g., workload)), and
“wherein the data configuration is further selected according to one or more predicted resource requirements of the workload, the one or more predicted resource requirements predicted based at least in part on one or more of:
a specification of the computer implementing the method, comprising at least one of a size of a memory, a maximum bandwidth between hardware components of the computer, or a maximum computing capacity available on each of the processor cores of the computer;
a specification of performance characteristics of the data collection based at least in part on one or more performance counters of the computer; or
information collected during one or more profiling runs of the workload” (see Borthakur et al., [0018] for a distributed storage configuration of the storage system facilitating scaling of storage system capacity as well as data bandwidth between host and storage devices; also see [0029] for combining multiple write operations in a single write operation to improve file system performance, wherein a set of file system operations can be interpreted as a workload as recited).
As to claim 28, Borthakur et al. teaches:
“A system” (see Borthakur et al., Abstract and Fig. 2), comprising:
“a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors to implement a platform-independent virtual environment” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 1, [0017], Fig. 2, and [0049] for a system for providing access to a virtual file system though programming language independent interface, wherein the system or the virtual file system as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a platform-independent virtual environment as recited) configured to
“access a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection, wherein to access the data collection the platform- independent virtual environment is configured to” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. Fig. 2, [0026] and [0047]-[0048] for accessing data (e.g., files) from the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) via API 214, wherein API 214 consists of a plurality of language-specific interfaces):
“configure the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface); and
“access the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] for accessing file system content from application process(es) via through calls to API 214 (i.e., a plurality of language-specific interfaces), wherein each API call can be interpreted as a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 29, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 28 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection comprises data and one or more language-independent access methods, and wherein the provided data collection functionality comprises access to the data via at least a portion of the one or more methods of the language-independent interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2, [0026] and [0047] for allowing access to the file system (i.e., data collection) though calls to an application programming interface (API) wherein each call represents a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 30, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 28 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein language independent interface is developed using a first programming language, and the data collection is accessed via the language-specific interface by an application developed using a second programming language different from the first programming language” (see Borthakur et al., [0048]-[0049] wherein the programming language independent interface provides access to file system data independently of the programming language or format of the application or the associated API (i.e., language-specific interface)).
As to claim 31, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 28 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“reconfigure the data collection according to another configuration to provide another data collection functionality, wherein the other configuration is selected based at least in part on performance information collected during execution of a workload accessing the data collection functionality” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface, wherein each language-specific interface provides a configuration of the data collection for interacting with an application).
As to claim 32, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 31 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the accessing is performed by a computer comprising a plurality of processor sockets individually comprising a plurality of processor cores” (see Borthakur et al., [0017]), and
“wherein the data collection functionality and the other data collection functionality individually comprise one or more of:
an operating system default NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a single socket NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
an interleaved NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a replicated NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a compression scheme for the data of the data collection;
an indexing scheme for data elements of the data collection; or
a data synchronization scheme for the data collection” (see Borthakur et al., [0052] wherein data in the file system can be compressed, which suggests that the file system must include a compression scheme for the data of the file system).
As to claim 33, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 28 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection is configured to organize data of the data collection as one of a bag, a set, an array, or a map” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 3 and [0037] wherein the file system (i.e., data collection) stores or organizes data as a set of files and named streams).
As to claim 34, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 28 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein accessing the data collection is performed as part of execution of a workload on a computer implementing the method” (see Borthakur et al., [0049] for accessing file system data based on function calls (e.g., workload)), and
“wherein the data configuration is further selected according to one or more predicted resource requirements of the workload, the one or more predicted resource requirements predicted based at least in part on one or more of:
a specification of the computer implementing the method, comprising at least one of a size of a memory, a maximum bandwidth between hardware components of the computer, or a maximum computing capacity available on each of the processor cores of the computer;
a specification of performance characteristics of the data collection based at least in part on one or more performance counters of the computer; or
information collected during one or more profiling runs of the workload” (see Borthakur et al., [0018] for a distributed storage configuration of the storage system facilitating scaling of storage system capacity as well as data bandwidth between host and storage devices; also see [0029] for combining multiple write operations in a single write operation to improve file system performance, wherein a set of file system operations can be interpreted as a workload as recited).
As to claim 35, Borthakur et al. teaches:
“One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a platform-independent virtual environment to perform” (see Borthakur et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and [0021] for a system for providing access to a virtual file system though programming language independent interface, wherein the system or the virtual file system as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a platform-independent virtual environment as recited):
“accessing a data collection via a language-specific interface of a plurality of language-specific interfaces of the data collection” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and [0047]-[0048] for accessing data (e.g., files) from the file system (i.e., data collection) via API 214, wherein API 214 consists of a plurality of language-specific interfaces), the accessing comprising:
“configuring the data collection according to a data configuration to provide data collection functionality to the language-specific interface, wherein the data configuration is selected according to a language of the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface); and
“accessing the data collection via a language-independent access method from the language-specific interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] for accessing file system content from application process(es) via through calls to API 214 (i.e., a plurality of language-specific interfaces), wherein each API call can be interpreted as a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 36, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 35 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection comprises data and one or more language-independent access methods, and wherein the provided data collection functionality comprises access to the data via at least a portion of the one or more methods of the language-independent interface” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2, [0026] and [0047] for allowing access to the file system (i.e., data collection) though calls to an application programming interface (API) wherein each call represents a language-independent access method as recited).
As to claim 37, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 35 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein language independent interface is developed using a first programming language, and the data collection is accessed via the language-specific interface by an application developed using a second programming language different from the first programming language” (see Borthakur et al., [0048]-[0049] wherein the programming language independent interface provides access to file system data independently of the programming language or format of the application or the associated API (i.e., language-specific interface)).
As to claim 38, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 35 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“reconfiguring the data collection according to another configuration to provide another data collection functionality, wherein the other configuration is selected based at least in part on performance information collected during execution of a workload accessing the data collection functionality” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 2 and [0048] wherein a language-specific interface is selected/generated to interface with an application to access the file system or virtual file system (i.e., data collection) based on a language of the application the language of the language-specific interface, wherein each language-specific interface provides a configuration of the data collection for interacting with an application).
As to claim 39, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 35 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the accessing is performed by a computer comprising a plurality of processor sockets individually comprising a plurality of processor cores” (see Borthakur et al., [0017]), and
“wherein the data collection functionality and the other data collection functionality individually comprise one or more of:
an operating system default NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a single socket NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
an interleaved NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a replicated NUMA-aware data placement for the data of the data collection;
a compression scheme for the data of the data collection;
an indexing scheme for data elements of the data collection; or
a data synchronization scheme for the data collection” (see Borthakur et al., [0052] wherein data in the file system can be compressed, which suggests that the file system must include a compression scheme for the data of the file system).
As to claim 40, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 35 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Borthakur et al. teaches:
“wherein the data collection is configured to organize data of the data collection as one of a bag, a set, an array, or a map” (see Borthakur et al., Fig. 3 and [0037] wherein the file system (i.e., data collection) stores or organizes data as a set of files and named streams).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164