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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicants are reminded of a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned. In the instant case, parent applications 17/119,311, 17/678,570, 18/052,985, 18/336,348, and 18/438,776 have numerous references cited in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892. Therefore, Applicant is aware of references which are considered information known to Applicants to be material to patentability, but failed to disclose these references in the instant application.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,297,123 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every element of claims 1-20 is present in the allowed claims 1-20 of the ‘123 Patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of the ‘123 Patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application
Claims 1 and 15 of the ‘123 Patent
19. A method comprising: receiving, via each feed receiver module or a plurality of feed receiver modules, a proper subset of messages of a plurality of incoming messages with keys included in a corresponding subset of a plurality of possible keys assigned to the feed receiver module in key assignment data; emitting, via the feed receiver module, only owned ones of the proper subset of messages having keys included in an owned subset of keys in the corresponding subset, corresponding to keys in the corresponding subset to which the feed receiver module is assigned as an owner in the key assignment data; receiving, via a central data streaming module, a plurality of messages from the plurality of feed receiver modules that includes only the owned ones of the proper subset of messages emitted via the each feed receiver module; and emitting, via the central data streaming module, a single data stream that includes the plurality of messages received from the plurality of feed receiver modules.
A method for execution by at least one processor of a data stream processing system, comprising: generating key assignment data indicating assignment of each of a plurality of subsets of a plurality of possible keys to a plurality of feed receiver modules by assigning exactly one owner feed receiver module of the plurality of feed receiver modules to each key of the plurality of possible keys for a plurality of incoming messages, and by further assigning a set of follower feed receiver modules of the plurality of feed receiver modules to the each key of the plurality of possible keys; processing the plurality of incoming messages via the plurality of feed receiver modules based on the key assignment data by, for each feed receiver module in the plurality of feed receiver modules: receiving a proper subset of messages of the plurality of incoming messages with keys included in a corresponding subset of the plurality of subsets of the plurality of possible keys assigned to the each feed receiver module in the key assignment data; maintaining a queue that includes messages of the proper subset of messages that compare favorably to a time window; identifying owned ones of the proper subset of messages having keys included in an owned subset of keys in the corresponding subset, corresponding to keys in the corresponding subset to which the each feed receiver module is assigned as an owner in the key assignment data; and emitting only the owned ones of the proper subset of messages.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the owned ones of the proper subset of messages are emitted to a central data streaming module of the data stream processing system, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, via the central data streaming module, a plurality of messages from the plurality of feed receiver modules that includes only the owned ones of the proper subset of messages emitted via the each feed receiver module of the plurality of feed receiver modules; and emitting, via the central data streaming module, a single data stream that includes the plurality of messages received from the plurality of feed receiver modules.
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.
Claim limitations “a plurality of feed receiver modules” and “a central data streaming module” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because a “module” is one of the nonce terms analogous to “means” that does not have a defined structure. Therefore, a “module” must be interpreted in light of the specification. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, while the specification refers the these “modules” throughout the disclosure, the specification fails to identify what these modules are. As an example, the specification identifies in par. [0110] as published, that “each of the plurality of feed receiver modules 2420.1-2420.Z are implemented via different nodes 37 on different servers.” However, it is unclear whether these modules are software programs executing on different servers or hardware circuits that are forming physical parts of the different servers. The specification also has a generic paragraph stating that “modules and components herein, can be implemented as illustrated or by discrete components, application specific integrated circuits, processors executing appropriate software and the like or any combination thereof.” However, it does not make it clear whether what the claimed modules are while broadly covering all types of “integrated circuits” and all types of “appropriate software” lacking any specificity establishing meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicants are advised to amend claim 1 consistent with claim 20 by reciting that the plurality of feed receiver modules and the central data streaming module, each include a processor and a memory storing operational instructions.
As to claim 1, the claim language “operable to” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the modules are actually configured to performed the claimed steps or are merely “able” to do so, which would be a statement of intended use. While the specification explains that “configured to” and “operable to” language MAY be used to “include one or more of power connections, input(s), output(s), etc., to perform, when activated, one or more its corresponding functions…” (par. [0218]-[0219] as Published), this is not a definition because of “may” language. Therefore, Applicants are advised to replace “operable to”, in both instances, with “configured to”.
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and upon filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights