DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed November 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 14-20 are cancelled.
Claims 22-24 has been newly added.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, 13, and 21-24 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on August 18, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 22-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the element performing the steps of “collecting…performing…predicting… searching…querying…determining…revising…and routing…”. The claim recites the steps of “collecting…performing…predicting…searching…querying…determining… revising…and routing…” without a corresponding element to perform the steps. The element, such as a service mesh and user profile submitting API calls to the service mesh, is essential for performing the identified steps. Therefore, appropriate correction is requested.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 22-24 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record taken alone and/or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest receiving, by the service mesh, an API call requesting transmission of data to a microservice of the service mesh via a microservice chain; identifying, by the service mesh, whether the transmission of the data to the microservice via the microservice chain triggers the threshold for compressing data, wherein the threshold is a period of time that an amount of aggregated network traffic of the service mesh is predicted to exceed a threshold level based on the service mesh metrics; upon triggering the threshold for compressing data, compressing, by the service mesh, the data at a first microservice of the microservice chain; and routing, by the service mesh, data compressed by the first microservice of the microservice chain to a second microservice of the microservice chain.
The prior art of record taken alone and/or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest receiving, by the service mesh, an API call requesting transmission of data to a microservice of the service mesh via a microservice chain, wherein a data size of the data exceeds the threshold for the user profile submitting the API call; upon the data exceeding the threshold, selectively enabling, by the service mesh, compression of the data by a first microservice in the microservice chain, in response to the API call submitted by the user profile; and routing, by the service mesh, data compressed by the first microservice of the microservice chain to a second microservice of the microservice chain.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 22-24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
February 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights