Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Objections Addressed, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The minor informality noted has been corrected. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended, and applicant’s arguments provide support in the Specification for the amended claims. The 112(a) rejections of claims 4, 11 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Double Patenting Rejection, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims do not appear to distinguish them over the reference document’s claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claims have integrated the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The 101 rejections of claims 1 – 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose the limitation of “the counter value dynamically reaching the threshold during execution of the cluster processing job, causing execution of the cluster processing job to be terminated”, stating that Kim’s threshold is static, and not a counter that dynamically reaches a threshold, and therefore the independent claims are not anticipated by Kim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the thresholds themselves (mapred.max.map.failures.percent, etc.) are static, they are not counter values. Rather, the counter value of Kim is the number of tasks that have failed during the execution of the job. Page 1 of Kim discloses “failure of the running task”. When the child task fails and the number of failed tasks is updated, the job is actively running. Any changes to the number of failures that have occurred will be dynamic.
Applicant further argues that Kim merely teaches map and reduce tasks in a general sense, and that Kim does not teach tasks as “a portion of the cluster processing job assigned to a cluster worker machine for processing”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ordinary meaning of MapReduce in the art is of a cluster processing model which assigns jobs to cluster workers for processing. See at least MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters by Dean and Ghemawat, the paper that introduced MapReduce, which is cited by Kim. The paper’s abstract states “Programs written in this functional style are automatically parallelized and executed on a large cluster of commodity machines”. Kim does not merely teach map and reduce tasks in a general sense. Rather, it is based on the ordinary meaning of MapReduce as a cluster processing model.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “the threshold value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. All other claims inherit this deficiency.
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 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Reference Document (15/809907)
A method comprising:
A system for monitoring job execution, comprising: … a processor configured to: …
receiving an indication that processing of a task has been terminated,
…determine whether processing a data instance of the plurality of data instances satisfies a watchdog criterion; and in the event that processing the data instance satisfies the watchdog criterion: cause the processing of the data instance to be killed…
wherein the task is one of one or more tasks of a cluster processing job, the task comprising a portion of the cluster processing job assigned to a cluster worker machine for processing;
…a cluster processing job…
…divide the cluster processing job into a plurality of data instances…
incrementing a counter value, the counter value indicative of a total number of tasks associated with the cluster processing job that have been terminated; and
…in the event that processing the data instances satisfies the watchdog criterion: increment a killed data instance counter…
in response to the counter value dynamically reaching the threshold value during execution of the cluster processing job, causing execution of the cluster processing job to be terminated.
determine whether the killed data instance counter satisfies a job killing threshold; and in response to a determination that the killed data instance counter satisfies the job killing threshold, cause processing of the cluster processing job to be killed.
The method of claim 1, wherein the cluster processing job is a query to process data stored in a data storage system.
…divide the cluster processing job into a plurality of data instances; determine whether processing a data instance of the plurality of data instances…
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a period of time that the task associated with the cluster processing job has been processing meets a threshold period of time; and
terminating the task associated with the cluster processing job in response to determining that the period of time meets the threshold period of time.
The system of claim 1, wherein the watchdog criterion comprises a time limit exceeded for processing the data.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated.
13. The system of claim 1…
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to store an indication in an output file that processing of the data instance was caused to be killed.
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,675, in view of known techniques for performing computer methods. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 recite “systems containing one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. The claims of the reference document do not explicitly recite the claimed processors. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. The claims of the reference document do not explicitly recite the claimed medium. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
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 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (NPL, Failures in Classic MapReduce).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication that processing of a task has been terminated, wherein the task is one of one or more tasks of a cluster processing job (Task Failure, where the child task of a MapReduce task is marked as failing), the task comprising a portion of the cluster processing job assigned to a cluster worker machine for processing (MapReduce’s ordinary meaning in the art is of a cluster processing model; Kim describes a child JVM in the first paragraph of Task Failure, which is running a child task assigned to it. The child task is a portion of the cluster processing job);
incrementing a counter value, the counter value indicative of a total number of tasks associated with the cluster processing job that have been terminated (Page 2, second-to-final paragraph, a maximum percentage of tasks in the job are allowed to fail before the job fails; Tracking this percentage means that Kim necessarily tracks the number of tasks that have failed. This number is the counter); and
in response to the counter value dynamically reaching the threshold value during execution of the cluster processing job, causing execution of the cluster processing job to be terminated (Page 2, second-to-final paragraph, when the number of tasks that have failed exceeds the maximum percentage of tasks that are allowed to fail, job failure is triggered).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cluster processing job is a query to process data stored in a data storage system (The job is a MapReduce job, which is data processing).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value is greater than 0 (Page 2, second-to-final paragraph, it is undesirable to abort the job if “a few tasks fail”. The threshold is at least “a few” which is greater than 0).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a previous task associated with the cluster processing job has been terminated, wherein the previous task is a prior one of the one or more tasks of the cluster processing job that was assigned to a cluster worker machine for processing and whose processing was terminated before the counter value reached the threshold value (Page 2 paragraph 4, when a jobtracker is notified of a task that has failed, it will reschedule execution of the task. That the jobtracker itself has not failed indicates that the counter value has not yet reached the threshold value);
incrementing an earlier version of the counter value indicating the total number of tasks associated with the cluster processing job that have been terminated (As stated in relation with claim 1, the presence of the threshold being actively checked during runtime of the job necessitates that the number of tasks that have been terminated is tracked and incremented when a termination occurs. A task has failed in page 2 paragraph 4 of Kim, so the counter is incremented);
determining that the earlier version of the counter value does not meet the threshold value (In the scenario of page 2 paragraph 4, the parent job has not failed, because it attempts to reschedule the failed child task. Therefore the counter does not yet meet the threshold value);
causing the previous task associated with the cluster processing job to be restarted by the cluster worker machine in response to determining that the earlier version of the counter value is below the threshold value (Page 2 paragraph 4, the jobtracker reschedules the failed task; In the scenario of page 2 paragraph 4, the parent job has not failed, because it attempts to reschedule the failed child task. Therefore the counter does not yet meet the threshold value).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a period of time that the task associated with the cluster processing job has been processing meets a threshold period of time (Page 2 first paragraph, the 10 minute timeout period for a task before it is killed); and
terminating the task associated with the cluster processing job in response to determining that the period of time meets the threshold period of time (Page 2 first paragraph, the child task is killed after the timeout period).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 – 12 and 15 –19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of known techniques for performing computer methods.
Claims 8 – 12 recite “systems containing one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 5. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 15 – 19 recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 5. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of a Cloudera Community post by user arkaprova (NPL), hereinafter Cloudera.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly teach storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated.
Kim does, however, teach storing, in an output file, an indication that the task that is part of the cluster processing job has been terminated (Task Failure paragraph 1, the error in a child task makes it into the user logs).
Cloudera teaches that MapReduce logs contain an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated (Page 3, the log notes “Job failed as tasks failed”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the logs described in Kim would include the information shown in the logs posted to Cloudera. It would be obvious because both are describing use of the same Hadoop MapReduce system, and the logs are part of said system. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that logs stored by MapReduce, regardless of user, would be likely to include the information posted to Cloudera.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Cloudera teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
storing in the output file, an indication of the task associated with the cluster processing job that has been terminated and the counter value (Cloudera page 3, the logs note a job counter for “Failed map tasks”).
Claims 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of known techniques for performing computer methods as applied to claims 8 – 12 and 15 – 19 above, further in view of Cloudera.
Claim 13 recites similar language to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites similar language to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites similar language to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights