DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 18-19, 20, 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the result data associated with the first partition”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the result data associated with the first set of partitions”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 18 recites “the second data engine”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the second data processor”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 19 recites “the counter”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “a counter”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 20 recites “the plurality of data processors including a first processor”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the plurality of data processors including a first data processor”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 20 recites “the sysetm including”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the system including”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 20 recites “a plurality of data stores, for storing the plurality of data elements, wherien”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “a plurality of data stores, for storing the plurality of data elements, wherein”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim 22 recites “means for processing data elements, the plurality of data processors including a first processor”. The examiner believes this is a typo. A suggested amendment to the claim is “means for processing data elements, the means for processing data elements including a first data processor”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 14-17 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.
Claims 14 and 16 recite “the processing component”. Based on the specification, [0007], [0062], [0070], it is unclear if “the processing component” is supposed to be “the consumer”. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the consumer”. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim(s) 15 fail to cure the deficiencies of their base claims and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 17 recites “the processing component”. Based on the specification, [0007], [0080], it is unclear if “the processing component” is supposed to be “the consumer”. A suggested amendment to the claim is “the consumer”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as suggested.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 22 recites
means for sending the first result data from the distributed computing cluster to a consumer of the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster
The corresponding structure and algorithm for the recited function is disclosed by the specification in ([0059], [0061], [0096]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 12, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”).
Regarding claim 1, Alperovich teaches
A method for fault-tolerant processing of a plurality of data elements using a distributed computing cluster, the distributed computing cluster including a plurality of data processors associated with a corresponding plurality of data stores, the method including: (Fig. 1, [0026], [0036], [0037]: fault tolerant processing of data across multiple data stores by multiple partition computing devices in a distributed computing cluster)
storing the plurality of data elements in the distributed computing cluster, wherein the plurality of data elements is distributed across the plurality of data stores according to a plurality of partitions of data elements; ([0036], [0037]: store data in multiple partitions across multiple data stores)
processing data elements of a first set of partitions of the plurality of partitions stored at a first data store of the plurality of data stores using a first data processor of the plurality of data processors to generate first result data for the data elements of the first set of partitions; ([0026], [0037]: reorder partitions in data stores using a partition compute device to generate reordered data of the partitions)
sending the first result data from the distributed computing cluster to a consumer of the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster; and ([0038], [0090]: flushing reordered data of the partition compute device in a buffer to a consumer outside the cluster)
storing the first result data in a first escrow buffer located in the distributed computing cluster and associated with the first data processor until the consumer has persistently stored the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster. ([0038], [0090]: flushing reordered data of the partition compute device in a buffer to a consumer outside the cluster)
Regarding claim 2, Alperovich further teaches
removing the first result data from the first escrow buffer after the consumer has persistently stored all the result data associated with the first partition outside the distributed computing cluster. ([0038], [0090]: flushing reordered data of the partition compute device in a buffer to a consumer outside the cluster)
Regarding claim 3, Alperovich further teaches
wherein at least some data stores of the plurality of data stores include two or more partitions of data elements of the plurality of data elements. ([0035]: data stores can contain multiple partitions)
Regarding claim 12, Alperovich further teaches
Wherein processing the data elements of the first set of partitions includes applying a same function to each data element. ([0037]: reordering according to a specified dimension)
Regarding claim 20, Alperovich teaches
A system for fault-tolerant processing of a plurality of data elements using a distributed computing cluster, the distributed computing cluster including a plurality of data processors associated with a corresponding plurality of data stores, the sysetm including: (Fig. 1, [0026], [0036], [0037]: fault tolerant processing of data across multiple data stores by multiple partition computing devices in a distributed computing cluster)
a plurality of data stores, for storing the plurality of data elements, wherien the plurality of data elements is distributed across the plurality of data stores according to a plurality of partitions of data elements; ([0036], [0037]: store data in multiple partitions across multiple data stores)
a plurality of data processors for processing data elements, the plurality of data processors including a first processor for processing a first set of partitions of the plurality of partitions stored at a first data store of the plurality of data stores to generate first result data for the data elements of the first set of partitions; ([0037]: reorder partitions in data stores using a partition compute device of a plurality of partition compute devices to generate reordered data of the partitions)
an output for sending the first result data from the distributed computing cluster to a consumer of the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster; and ([0038], [0090]: flushing reordered data of the partition compute device in a buffer to a consumer outside the cluster)
a first escrow buffer located in the distributed computing cluster and associated with the first data processor for storing the first result data until the consumer has persistently stored the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster. ([0038], [0090]: flushing reordered data of the partition compute device in a buffer to a consumer outside the cluster)
Claim(s) 21, the medium(s) that implement(s) the method(s) of claim(s) 1, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, respectively.
Alperovich further teaches
A computer-readable medium storing software in a non-transitory form, the software including instructions for causing a computing system to process, in a fault tolerant manner, a plurality of data elements using a distributed computing cluster, the distributed computing cluster including a plurality of data processors associated with a corresponding plurality of data stores, the instructions causing the computing system to: (Fig. 1, [0026], [0036], [0037]: fault tolerant processing of data across multiple data stores by multiple partition computing devices in a distributed computing cluster. [0101], [0102]: computer-readable medium storing software instructions for causing the system to perform the methods)
Claim(s) 22, the system(s) that implement(s) the system(s) of claim(s) 20, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 20, respectively.
Alperovich further teaches
means for sending ([0101], [0102]: computer-readable medium storing software instructions for causing the system to perform the methods)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190129758 (“Douros”).
Regarding claim 4, Alperovich does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Douros teaches
wherein the consumer includes a dataflow graph including a consumer component. (Fig. 2, [0050], [0051]: a dataflow graph acts as a sink for a response and contains a call cluster component that acts as a sink)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Douros’ graph-based consumer with Alperovich’s consumer.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because to improve parallel computational efficiency for varying computation requirements (Alperovich, [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Alperovich does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Douros teaches
wherein the consumer component of the dataflow graph includes a second escrow buffer for storing result data, the method further comprising storing the first result data in the second escrow buffer. (Fig. 2, [0062], [0063]: the call cluster component stores results in a buffer)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Douros’ consumer buffer with Alperovich’s consumer.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to be able to recover from errors in a variety of scenarios (Douros, [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Alperovich in view of Douros further teaches
wherein the first result data is released from the second escrow buffer based on an indication that the computing cluster has persistently stored a state associated with the first result data. (Douros, [0055], [0057], [0063]: the call cluster component releases the results from the buffer once the cluster indicates the results have been persisted in the cluster)
Regarding claim 17, Alperovich in view of Douros further teaches
receiving, at the first data processor, a message from the processing component requesting the first data processor to resend the first result data to the processing component; and (Douros, [0101], [0102]: a request for a resent response is sent from the call cluster component to the worker)
sending, by the first data processor, the first result data to the processing component. (Douros [0074], [0104]: the response is resent from the worker to the call cluster component)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190129758 (“Douros”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 20060253731 (“Petruzzo”).
Regarding claim 7, Alperovich in view of Douros further teaches
removing the first result data from the second escrow buffer after the consumer has released all result data for the first partition from the second escrow buffer…for the dataflow graph. (Alperovich, [0038]: partition result; Douros, [0063]: after releasing the response, the response is removed
Alperovich in view of Douros does not further teach removing the first result data from the second escrow buffer after the consumer has persistently stored state information
Petruzzo teaches
removing the first result data from the second escrow buffer after the consumer has persistently stored state information ([0050], [0051]: after persistently storing an IO request, clear the buffer)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Petruzzo’s persistence with Alperovich in view of Douros’s buffer.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to protect from data loss due to failures (Petruzzo, [0027]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150378845 (“Shang”).
Regarding claim 8, Alperovich does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Shang teaches
re-sending the first result data from the distributed computing cluster to the consumer based on a determination that the consumer encountered a fault before persistently storing the first result data outside the distributed computing cluster. ([0040], [0095], [0098]: based on detecting a fault of a consumer due to the lack of an indication that the consumer persistently stored data changes from a productor of a distributed cluster, the producer resends the data changes)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Shang’s consumer fault tolerance with Alperovich’s consumer.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to ensure zero data loss when transferring data (Shang, [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Alperovich in view of Shang further teaches
wherein re-sending the first result data includes reading the first result data from the first escrow buffer associated with the first data processor. (Shang, [0087], [0098]: resending data changes from a transaction log of the producer)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20120303577 (“Calder”).
Regarding claim 13, Alperovich does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Calder teaches
wherein the processing further comprises: marking each processing result in the first result data with a partition number and a value of a counter associated with the cluster ([0057], [0062], [0064], [0067]: data updates are stamped with a partition number and an epoch number of the cluster)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Calder’s update stamps with Alperovich’s partition processing.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to ensure sequential committing of data when transmission is nonsequential (Calder, [0062]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200379774 (“Alperovich”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20200322425 (“Sharma”).
Regarding claim 18, Alperovich does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Sharma teaches
determining, by the first data processor, that the second data processor is subject to failure of operation, in particular wherein the failure of operation is detected based on a message indicating the failure being sent from the second data engine or the second data engine failing to respond to a message regularly sent by the first data processor; and ([0026], [0094: a server detects a lack of heartbeat from another server)
responsive to determining the failure, replicating the second data processor. ([0065], [0094]: due to the missed heartbeat, move the partition from the server to another server)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sharma’s server failure handling with Alperovich’s fault-tolerant processing.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to provide decentralized fault tolerance of distributed servers (Sharma, [0018])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-11, 14-16, 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests determining that the first data processor encountered a fault and, based on that determination activating a replica of the first data processor based on a determination that the first data processor encountered a fault, restoring the consumer to its state prior to receiving the first result data from the distributed computing cluster as recited in claim(s) 10. The closest prior art(s) of record is/are
US Patent Application Publication No. 20190129758 (“Douros”). Douro discloses different scenarios of determining that the first data processor encountered a fault ([0081]) where, based on that determination, either activating a replica of the first data processor based on a determination that the first data processor encountered a fault ([0141], [0142]) or restoring the consumer to its state prior to receiving the first result data from the distributed computing cluster ([0100]). Douros does not disclose a scenario where these actions are performed together.
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests in response to a predefined number of data elements having finished processing in the distributed computing cluster, incrementing a counter associated with the cluster, and sending a message to the processing component, said message indicating that a checkpoint indicated by the counter has been reached as recited in claim(s) 14. The closest prior art(s) of record is/are
US Patent Application Publication No. 20040098719: taking a checkpoint after a number of batch commits has been reached ([0047], [0053], [0059])
US Patent Application Publication No. 20170208113: after all graphs finish executing, increment a checkpoint counter ([0180])
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests identifying, by the first data processor, a further data processor in the plurality of data processors, in particular by identifying a data processor that responds to a message within a threshold time and/or that reports available capacity upon request; and sending a message to the identified data processor, said message requesting the identified data processor to update its data elements according to a state reflected by a previous value of the first counter, said data elements associated with a partition previously assigned to the second data processor as recited in claim(s) 19. The closest prior art(s) of record is/are
US Patent Application Publication No. 20200322425: each server determines their load and respective suitability rankings among other servers for taking over a partition, and a record for the partition is updated to indicate that the partition is assigned to a new server ([0051]-[0053])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 20160110271: releasing outgoing messages once a checkpoint of the message has been taken
US Patent Application Publication No. 20190104179: using a distributed cache for message queueing between producers and consumers
US Patent No. 9904718: removing data from a local cache once the data has been stored in an external store
US Patent Application Publication No. 20120079505: removing data from a local cache once changes have been replicated in consumer memory
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5721. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-3:00PM PT.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113