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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 11, 18 the generating, initiating cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 2, 12 the generate cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receive, store are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 the determine, add, remove, assign, generate, maintain, define cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 9 parallel processors are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al., Pub. No.: US 20150332000 A1, hereinafter Bess in view of Bortnikov et al., Pub. No.: US 20170220617 A1, hereinafter Bortnikov.
As per claim 1, Bess discloses A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a centralized computing node (fig.’s 2-3, pars. 60-64) […an…] entry that corresponds to an unprocessed concurrent match result determination (par. 13, 75-77, 113, 122 disclose generating duplicate probability scores, pars. 136-139, 152-155, 182 disclose scoring, sorting, merging records which corresponds match results and actions thereupon) originating from one of a plurality of processing nodes (par. 97, 121-122 discloses multiple sources accessing the system);
Bess does not expressly disclose receiving and from a match result serialization queue, a selected unprocessed match result. However, Bortnikov discloses this in at least pars. 82-95. Bortnikov discloses a transaction manager that receives transaction entries from a commit log queue, each entry in the commit log representing unprocessed transaction determinations, multiple concurrent threads submitting transactions for processing, the commit log functioning as a serialization queue with head/tail pointers; see Bortnikov pars. 82-95.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Bortnikov would have allowed Bess’s duplicate detection system to implement serialization queues; when Bess’s system generates duplicate match results from concurrent processing sources, these results would be placed in Bortnikov’s queue structure for serialized validation, rather than being processed immediately. This allows for efficiently managing concurrent duplicate detection operations in Bess’s system while maintaining database consistency using Bortnikov’s known serialization queue technique.
receiving, by the centralized computing node and from a local storage medium of the centralized computing node, a set of recently-processed match result entries that respectively correspond to a set of concurrent match result determinations assigned an affirmative match result validation during a defined recency period (Bess, pars. 58, 173, 183-185 disclose time period-based identifying (and merging) of duplicate records and maintaining historical information thereof and Bortnikov, pars. 67, 83, 84, 88, 90, 102 disclose storing recently processed operation results (committed transactions) with timestamps and checking against this recent history during a defined time period);
generating, by the centralized computing node, a serialized match result determination for the selected unprocessed match result entry based on the unprocessed concurrent match result determination and the set of recently-processed match result entries (Bess, pars. 13, 80-93 disclose a centralized duplicate detection and scoring process and generating duplicate probability scores by comparing match results and pars. 90, 109-117, 130 disclose different fields weighted and compared to determine if records are duplicates. Bortnikov, abstract and pars. 82-95 disclose transaction commits only if both types of conflict detections are passed (i.e. a serialized match result determination) including hash map conflicts with recently committed transactions and commit log conflicts with actively processing transactions); and
initiating, by the centralized computing node, a performance of a concurrent write request for the unprocessed concurrent match result determination based on the serialized match result determination (Bess, pars. 186-189 disclose performing merging / updates based on duplicate detection results. Bortnikov, abstract and pars. 43, 82-95 disclose concurrent committing of multiple transactions after passing serialized validation (transaction commits only if both types of conflict detections are passed)).
As per claim 2, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprises: receiving, from the one of the plurality of processing nodes, the unprocessed concurrent match result determination from the one of the plurality of processing nodes (Bortnikov pars. 82-95 disclose receiving operations and storing them in a (serialization) queue as entries with fields/attributes); generating the selected unprocessed match result entry for the unprocessed concurrent match result determination (see rejection above); and storing the selected unprocessed match result entry within the match result serialization queue in accordance with a serialization ordering (Bortnikov pars. 82-95 disclose storing the received operations in the queue with head/tail pointer-based ordering).
As per claim 3, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the serialization ordering is determined based on a priority score for the selected unprocessed match result entry that is based on a generation time of the selected unprocessed match result entry (Bortnikov as cited in the rejection of claims 1-2 discloses commit timestamps and that transactions are processed based on temporal ordering using timestamps).
As per claim 4, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the serialization ordering is determined based on a priority score for the selected unprocessed match result entry that is based on a count of database records associated with the selected unprocessed match result entry (Bortnikov pars. 81-82 disclose that write set size (number of records) is tracked as “wset” in commit logs and transaction-based prioritizing. Also, Bess pars. 101, 182 discloses record characteristic-based prioritizing in that records are sorted according to their duplicate matching scores).
As per claim 5, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the serialization ordering is determined based on a priority score for the selected unprocessed match result entry that is based on a concurrent write request group associated with the selected unprocessed match result entry (Bess, pars. 68, 123, 157-158, 174).
As per claim 6, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein initiating the performance of the concurrent write request comprises, in response to determining that the serialized match result determination for the selected unprocessed match result entry is a negative match result validation determination, (i) adding a new concurrent write request for the selected unprocessed match result entry to a concurrent write request group for a database, and (ii) removing the selected unprocessed match result entry from the match result serialization queue (Bortnikov, pars. 99-101 disclose “determine there is a conflict … the bucket is unlocked followed by an abortion of the transaction” and failed transactions can be resubmitted after conflict resolution; Bess as cited in the rejection of claim 1 discloses removing processed entries and adding new requests).
As per claim 7, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein initiating the performance of the concurrent write request comprises, in response to determining that the serialized match result determination for the selected unprocessed match result entry is an affirmative match result validation determination, (i) assigning the affirmative match result validation determination to an unprocessed write request corresponding to the selected unprocessed match result entry, (ii) generating a recently-processed match result entry for the unprocessed write request, and (iii) maintaining the recently-processed match result entry as one of the set of recently-processed match result entries within the local storage medium of the centralized computing node for the defined recency period (Bortnikov, pars. 80, 82, 83-93, 96, 102 disclose conflict detection is passed and committing the write set, updating the hash map, and maintaining / storing hash map entries for defined periods using garbage collection. Bess, pars. 57-59, 170, 188 disclose maintaining recently processed records as merge history information and tracking when the merge took place).
As per claim 8, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the defined recency period comprises at least one of an estimated database update latency period or an administrator-defined optimal waiting period that is defined based at least in part on a desired database consistency caution level for a database (Bortnikov, pars. 103 discloses configurable recency periods as an adjustable hash table size for throughput / consistency needs and Bess pars. 32, 60, 99, 123, 136 disclose admin config params as customizable duplicate probability scoring algorithms and organizational need and reliability-based configuration).
As per claim 9, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processing nodes comprises a set of parallel processors of a multi-processor computing entity (Bortnikov, pars. 77-78 and Bess, pars. 13, 98, 190).
As per claim 10, Bess in view of Bortnikov discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the serialized match result determination is based on a match between a proposed database aggregate for the selected unprocessed match result entry that identified a particular database record within a database (See Bess as cited in the rejection of claim 1 for aggregation of records as at least merges).
As per claims 11-20, they include the same or similar subject matter as above claims and are therefore likewise rejected. See Bess, pars. 98. 190 for the system and media of claims 11 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154