DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 02/04/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 22-24 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
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 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the system of claim 6”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 6 has been cancelled. For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this to mean “the system of claim 1”.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 22-23 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 9-10, 12-14, and 24 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 15-17, and 19-20 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation of “assigning a first priority weight to a first control component of a computing system and a second priority weight to a second control component of the computing system, wherein the first priority weight and the second priority weight are associated with an operation able to be performed by the first control component or the second control component at the computing system;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate an operation able to be performed by a first control component or a second control component and based on this evaluation can mentally assign priority weights to the first control component and the second control component. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “determining, based on a comparison of the first priority weight to the second priority weight, the first control component to perform the operation;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally compare and evaluate a first and second priority weight, and based on these evaluations, can mentally determine the first control component to perform the operation. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “overriding, based on data defining the request, the first priority weight;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe data defining a request, and based on these observations can mentally override the first priority weight by deciding not to use the first priority weight.
Claim 9: The limitation of “comparing current workload data, representative of a current workload to be executed using the operation at the computing device, and historical workload data, representative of historical workload executed using the operation at the computing device, wherein the historical workload data comprises historical plugin parameters and historical capabilities for one or more plugins that have historically performed the operation;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe current workload data and historic workload data that comprises historical plugin parameters and historical capabilities for one or more plugins that have historically performed an operation, and based on these operations can mentally compare the current workload data and the historical workload data. Further, the limitation of “in connection with the comparing, identifying, by an analytical model, current capabilities of a first plugin and a second plugin, based on one or more of the current capabilities being new capabilities or updated capabilities as compared to previous capabilities of the first plugin or the second plugin;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe one or more current capabilities being new capabilities or updated capabilities as compared to previous capabilities of a first plugin or a second plugin and, based on these observations, can mentally identify current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “determining, by the analytical model, the first plugin as having a highest priority weight based on a comparison of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin to the current workload data and the historical workload data;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally compare and evaluate the current capabilities of a first plugin and second plugin with current workload data and historical workload data, and based on these comparisons, can mentally determine the first plugin as having a highest priority weight. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “generating a privilege for performance of the operation by the second plugin based on identification of the request;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe an identification of a request, and based on these observations can mentally generate a privilege for performance of the operation by the second plugin.
Claim 15: The limitation of “comparing, via an analytical model of the system, first capabilities, of the operation capabilities, associated with a first control component of the subset, with second capabilities, of the operation capabilities, associated with a second control component of the subset;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe operation capabilities associated with a first control component and operation capabilities associated with a second control component and, based on these observations, can mentally compare the operational capabilities. Further, the limitation of “ranking, by the CRM controller, the first and second control components of the subset, wherein the ranking is performed based on an operation comprised by the operation capabilities;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe an operation and a first and second control component and, based on these observations, can mentally rank the first and second control components. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “evaluating, via the analytical model, the first capabilities and the second capabilities based on historical workload data comprising a result of a historical performance of the operation;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe historical workload data and, based on these observations, can mentally evaluate first capabilities and second capabilities. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “generating, by the CRM controller, priorities for performance of the operation by the first and second control components based on the ranking as modified by the evaluating;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe the ranking and evaluation of a first and second control component and, based on these observations, can mentally generate priorities for performance of an operation by the first and second control components. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitation of “generating, by the CRM controller, a first permission for a performance of a first sub-portion of the operation by a non-selected one of the first control component or the second control component, based on a request for performance of the operation at the system having been received by the system; and generating, by the CRM controller, a second permission for the performance of a second sub-portion of the operation by a selected one of the first control component or the second control component of the subset, based on the priorities”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a request for performance of the operation and priorities and, based on these observations, can mentally generate a first permission for a performance of a first sub-portion of the operation by a non-selected one of the first control component or the second control component and can mentally generate a second permission for the performance of a second sub-portion of the operation by a selected one of the first control component or the second control component of the subset. This may also be done with pencil and paper.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claims recite the following additional elements – “A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:” and “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor facilitate performance of operations, comprising:”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “identifying a request for the operation to be performed at the computing system;”, “and instructing a performance of the operation by the second control component by data communication with the second control component”, “receiving a request for performance of an operation by a computing device;”, “and communicating with the second plugin to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin”, and “A method, comprising: registering, by a conflict resolution manager (CRM) controller of a system comprising at least one processor, a subset of control components of a set of control components of the system, wherein the registering comprises logging operation capabilities of the subset of control components;”, which are merely recitations of data reception, transmission, and storage which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)].
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 2 and 16, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the first control component is a first system management console, a first service, or a first plugin of the computing system, and wherein the second control component is another system management console, a second service, or a second plugin of the computing system”, and “wherein the first control component and the second control component comprise plugins of, or to be installed at, at least one of the system or a management console of the system” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 2 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 2 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: prior to the overriding, selecting the first control component to perform the operation based on a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation between the first control component and the second control component” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe e first control component and the second control component and, based on these observations, can mentally select the first control component to perform the operation by mentally performing a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the comparison is a first comparison,” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the assigning further comprises: evaluating, at a specified frequency using an analytical model of the computing system, workload data representative of a workload applicable to current execution of the operation at the computing system and historical workload data representative of a historical workload applicable to past execution of the operation at the computing system;” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally evaluate current workload data and historical workload data at a specified frequency. Further, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “further evaluating, using the analytical model, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component;” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally evaluate one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component. Further, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “and based on the evaluating and the further evaluating, assigning at least one of the first priority weight or the second priority weight” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe evaluations and based these evaluations, can mentally assign a first priority weight or a second priority weight. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “and adjusting the suggested priority weight, by a conflict resolution manager controller of the computing system, resulting in the first priority weight, wherein the adjusting is at least partially based on evaluating, using an analytical model of the computing system, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe evaluations and one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component and, based on these observations, can mentally adjust a suggested priority weight. Further, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the assigning further comprises: obtaining a suggested priority weight from the first control component;” which is merely a recitation of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, claim 7 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “and associating the request with the first control component and with the second control component based on the data defining the request” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe data defining a request and based on these observations can associate a request with a first and second control component. Further, claim 17 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “and generating, by the CRM controller, the first permission in response to the request” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally generate a first permission in response to a request. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: intercepting the request for the operation to be performed at the computing system;” and “further comprising: intercepting, by the CRM controller, the request for the operation to be performed at the system;” which is merely a recitation of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 7 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claims 7 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: re-assigning the first priority weight at a selected frequency based on receipt of updated workload data representative of an updated workload for execution of the operation at the computing system and further based on comparison of the updated workload data to historical workload data representative of a historical workload applicable to past execution of the operation at the computing system” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe and evaluate updated workload data by comparing it to historical workload data and based on these evaluations can re-assign a priority weight at a selected frequency. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: further basing the selecting on an interception of the request to first plugin of the computing device” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe an interception of a request to a first plugin and can base a mental selection on these observations. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: performing an impact assessment comprising a prediction of computing device performance metrics to result from the performance of the operation by the first plugin and by the second plugin; and further basing the determining of the highest priority weight on result data resulting from the performing of the impact assessment” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally predict computing device performance metrics to result from the performance of a given operation by a first plugin and can base a mental determination of the highest priority weight on the results of this prediction. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 13 and 19, claim 13 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein a result of the registering is employed by the analytical model for the identifying of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a result of registering and, based on these observations, can mentally identify current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: registering, by a conflict resolution manager controller of the system, the first plugin and the second plugin with the conflict resolution manager controller, the registering of the first plugin and the second plugin comprising registering the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin,”, and “further comprising: sending, by the CRM controller, data defining the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset” which are merely recitations of data storage and transmission which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 13 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 13 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claims 13 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the request is generated by a user device associated with a user entity associated with the computing device,” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim recites additional element recitations of “and wherein the request is obtained by the computing device by intercepting the request” which is merely a recitation of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 14 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 20, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “re further comprising: re-ranking, by the CRM controller, the control components of the subset, relative to the operation, at a selected frequency based on at least one of updated operation capabilities of the first and second control components of the control components of the subset or updated performance metrics of the system” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe and evaluate updated operation capabilities of first and second control components or current performance metrics of a system and based on these evaluations can mentally compare and order a subset of control components into a re-ranking. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, claim 20 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 20 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 22, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the operations further comprise: prior to or in connection with the overriding, requesting a privilege corresponding to the second component for performance of the operation based on the data defining the request”, which is merely a recitation of data transmission which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 22 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 22 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 23, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “and assigning at least one of the first priority weight or the second priority weight based on at least one of the first suggested priority weight or the second suggested priority weight” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a first suggested priority weight or a second suggested priority weight and, based on these observations, can mentally assign at least one of the first priority weight or the second priority weight. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a first suggested priority weight from the first control component; obtaining a second suggested priority weight from the second control component;”, which are merely recitations of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 23 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 23 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claim 23 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 24, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: based on the comparison of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin to the current workload data, on the historical workload data, and on the data defining the request, instructing the first plugin to perform a first sub-portion of the operation,” and “wherein the communicating to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin comprises instructing the second plugin to perform a second sub-portion of the operation, different from the first sub-portion of the operation”, which are merely recitations of data transmission which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 24 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 24 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claim 24 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 22-24 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under U.S.C. §101.
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 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Yu teaches:
A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, performs an operation…” [Yu Claim 8].
assigning a first priority weight to a first control component of a computing system “Relevance to the user may be determined by, for example, assigning relevance scores (priority weight) to widgets based on correlations between the user context information and predefined rules (e.g., rules may define that certain user context information is associated with certain widgets) and/or historical data (e.g., data about other similar users' interactions with user interface components)” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 17-24].
and a second priority weight to a second control component of the computing system, “For example, a tax preparation application may load a first set of widgets (e.g., tax liability/refund calculators, a completeness engine, tax support modules, emotional response modules, and the like). An accounting application, on the other hand, may load a different set of widgets (e.g., credit/debit calculators, statement generators, and the like), as the functionality of the accounting application does not depend on the same widgets as the tax preparation application” [Yu Col. 11 Lines 21-29 Examiner notes any second widget within the loaded set may be considered the second component]. “… using a model to determine a relevance score for each widget of the set of widgets based on the context information…” [Yu Claim 1].
wherein the first priority weight and the second priority weight are associated with an operation able to be performed by the first control component or the second control component at the computing system; “Relevance to the user may be determined by, for example, assigning relevance scores to widgets based on correlations between the user context information and predefined rules (e.g., rules may define that certain user context information is associated with certain widgets) and/or historical data (e.g., data about other similar users' interactions with user interface components)” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 17-24]. “Context identifier 410 generally identifies information provided by a client device (e.g., client device 120 in FIG.1), such as information about the requested step of a workflow, the capabilities of the client device, clickstream data, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and information about cached data at the client device, to be used in identifying one or more plugins and/or widgets to add to a generated user interface definition” [Yu Col. 15 Lines 59-67]. “Context information may describe a context in which the client device accesses the application, including characteristics of the client device, characteristics of a user of the client device, historical behavior of the user, and the like. For example, context information may include browsing information, search information, clickstream information, user preferences information, user profile information, geographic location information, device type and capability information, platform information, and the like” [Yu Col. 3 Lines 27- 36].
identifying a request for the operation to be performed at the computing system; “To generate the user interface definition, orchestration engine 134 uses, for example, the information identifying requested relevant step of a workflow and context information to identify one or more plugins and/or widgets to implement the relevant user interface at client device 120” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 50-55].
determining, based on a comparison of the first priority weight to the second priority weight, the first control component to perform the operation; “Intent identifier 420 may then compare the user's vector to each of the vectors for the widgets using a similarity metric (e.g., cosine similarity), ranking each widget in order of relevance based on a degree of similarity. Intent identifier 420 may therefore determine user intent by identifying the widgets which are relevant to the user.” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 21-27 examiner notes that ranking the relevance of widgets is considered a comparison between the priority weights of control components]. “In another example, priority information can be used to implicitly indicate a preferred method for performing a task in an application. For example, in a document ingestion workflow step of an application, the priority information may indicate that widgets associated with document ingestion via image capture are to be displayed at the top of the screen on the client device, and priority information for widgets associated with manual document ingestion may indicate that those widgets are to be displayed below image capture widgets, in an inactive tab, or otherwise in a form that indicates that document ingestion via image capture is the preferred method for ingesting data into the application” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 51-63].
Yu fails to explicitly teach overriding, based on data defining the request, the first priority weight.
However, Tokarev Sela teaches overriding, based on data defining the request, the first priority weight; “As a non-limiting example, if a user is presented with a dashboard containing a first widget from the recommended widget list which the user marks as not relevant (e.g., by interacting with the dashboard), the universal knowledge graph system may populate the dashboard with a second widget having the next highest priority on the recommended widget list” [Tokarev Sela ¶ 49].
Tokarev Sela is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Tokarev Sela and include overriding, based on data defining the request, the first priority weight. Doing so would allow for a user to reject a recommended control component and be presented with another recommendation.
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela fails to explicitly teach and instructing, a performance of the operation by the second control component by data communication with the second control component.
However, Popli teaches and instructing, a performance of the operation by the second control component by data communication with the second control component. “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files (operations) and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file. Application broker service 120 can then interface with operating system 110 to cause the selected application (second control component), as opposed to any application specified in the intercepted request to open the file, to be used to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17]. “An application to open the file can be selected based on a location of the file. The selected application can then be invoked to open the file” [Popli ¶ 4]. “Turning to FIG. 3C, once it has selected the application to open the file, in step 7, application broker service 120 can modify the request to open the file (or create a different request) to cause the selected application to open the file as opposed to the application (e.g., the default application) that filing opening component 111 specified. In this example, this may entail specifying a browser as the application to be launched by the call to the CreateProcess function and specifying a URL that identifies Office 365 Word and the file to be opened (e.g., using a unique identifier of the file within OneDrive)” [Popli ¶ 26]. “… file opening component 111 (which could be explorer.exe) could call some version of the CreateProcess function and specify "C:\ProgramFiles\Microsoft Office\Office16\winword.exe" and "C:\Users\User1\Desktop\document.docx" as arguments. As a result, Microsoft Word would be launched and would be passed the file path/name so that it would open the file” [Popli ¶ 15].
Popli is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela to incorporate the teachings of Popli and include and instructing, a performance of the operation by the second control component by data communication with the second control component. Doing so would allow for the selected best component to complete the operation. “In this way, application broker service 120 can ensure that there will be no failure to open the file and that the selected application is a preferred/best application for opening the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
With regard to claim 2, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches wherein the first control component is a first system management console, a first service, or a first plugin of the computing system, and wherein the second control component is another system management console, a second service, or a second plugin of the computing system. “In other examples, an order of plugins or widgets or user interface elements defined in a custom user interface definition may be based on a priority associated with each plugin or widget or user interface element” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 39-42, 51-53].
With regard to claim 7, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 6, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
the request for the operation to be performed at the computing system; “To generate the user interface definition, orchestration engine 134 uses, for example, the information identifying requested relevant step of a workflow and context information to identify one or more plugins and/or widgets to implement the relevant user interface at client device 120” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 50-55].
and associating the request with the first control component and with the second control component based on the data defining the request. “In some embodiments, for example, the model is trained using machine learning algorithms that identify statistical correlations between certain widgets and aspects of the context information of the plurality of users from the historical data. The model may, for example, store associations between certain user segments (e.g., users of the plurality of users who have certain combinations of browsing, search, and/or clickstream information, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and the like) and widgets which those user segments historically interacted with” [Yu Col. 3 Lines 60-66].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: intercepting the request for the operation to be performed at the computing system.
However, Popli teaches wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: intercepting the request for the operation to be performed at the computing system; “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Labaj (US 9,798,465 B1).
With regard to claim 3, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
wherein the comparison is a first comparison, “Intent identifier 420 may then compare the user's vector to each of the vectors for the widgets using a similarity metric (e.g., cosine similarity), ranking each widget in order of relevance based on a degree of similarity. Intent identifier 420 may therefore determine user intent by identifying the widgets which are relevant to the user.” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 21-27 examiner notes that ranking the relevance of widgets is considered a first comparison].
and wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: prior to the overriding, selecting the first control component to perform the operation based on a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation between the first control component and the second control component. “The custom user interface definition may omit plugins and/or widgets associated with capabilities not found on the client device” [Yu Col. 19 Line 6-11]. “Widget selector 430 may also reduce the available set of widgets based on the device capabilities of a client device, only selecting widgets which are compatible with the platform and capabilities of the client device, identified using the context information” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 58-63].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach selecting the first control component to perform the operation based on a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation between the first control component and the second control component.
However, Labaj teaches selecting the first control component to perform the operation based on a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation between the first control component and the second control component. “Referring to FIG. 9, shown is an example of filtering criteria 910 that may be used in an embodiment in accordance with techniques herein. The filtering criteria selected may be based on any one or more of LUN capacity, I/O activity, and application. For example, a user may select highest capacity 912 as filtering criteria whereby a specified number of LUNs having the highest capacity may be included in the GUI display” [Labaj Col. 22 Lines 42-49].
Labaj is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of digital task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Labaj and include selecting the first control component to perform the operation based on a second comparison of a determination of highest capability to perform the operation between the first control component and the second control component. Doing so would allow for further optimization and consideration of performance requirements. “For example, if trying to improve performance because and SLO is violated, it may be desirable to relocate or move a hot data portion of a LUN currently stored on a low performance tier to a higher performance tier to increase overall performance for the LUN” [Labaj Col. 12 Lines 45-50].
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0385286 A1).
With regard to claim 4, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
using an analytical model of the computing system, “The method generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 1-5].
workload data representative of a current workload applicable to current execution of the operation at the computing system and historical workload data representative of a historical workload applicable to past execution of the operation at the computing system; “A relevance score may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user (current workload data) may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data (historical workload data) associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38].
further evaluating, using the analytical model, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component “Plugin definition repository 150 generally stores plugin definitions defined for a specific workflow step. As discussed above, these plugin definitions generally reference one or more widgets defined in widget repository 160 and one or more functions provided by API service 142 that may relate to application logic stored in application logic repository 180. Plugin definition repository 150 may be a versioned repository, and plugin version data may be updated as the configuration of a plugin (e.g., widgets used by the plugin, functions referenced by the plugin, and the like) changes” [Yu Col. 8 Lines 31-41]. “The application state information may include the current version of a user interface specification (widget definitions and/or updated rules for processing user-provided data) for a specific step of a workflow cached at client device 120, the current step of the workflow executing in application 122, 30 and a variation of the application a user is executing (e.g., the version of the application specific to a geographical region that client device 120 is executing application 122 in)” [Yu Col. 5 Lines 26-34].
and based on the evaluating, assigning the priority weight. “A relevance score (priority weight) may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user (current workload data) may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data (historical workload data) associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach wherein the assigning further comprises: evaluating, at a specified frequency and further evaluating, using the analytical model, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component.
However, Wang teaches:
wherein the assigning further comprises: evaluating, at a specified frequency “Optionally, the NRF 202 may perform 413b a periodical aliveness check on address information of at least a part of NF/service instances registered at the NRF 202 … This is especially beneficial for a NF/service instance of which the address information cannot be resolved previously, and/or a NF/service instance which is unreachable according to its old address information” [Wang ¶ 68].
further evaluating, using the analytical model, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component. “In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the NRF 202 may adjust a priority of the NF/service instance based at least in part on the address information of the NF/service instance. For example, the NRF 202 may decrease a priority of a NF/service instance in the case that an IP address cannot be resolved for the NF/service instance. Alternatively or additionally, a priority of a NF/service instance which is unreachable according to an IP address of the NF/service instance also may be decreased by the NRF 202” [Wang ¶ 67]. “Optionally, the NRF 202 may perform 413b a periodical aliveness check on address information of at least a part of NF/service instances registered at the NRF 202 … This is especially beneficial for a NF/service instance of which the address information cannot be resolved previously, and/or a NF/service instance which is unreachable according to its old address information” [Wang ¶ 68].
Wang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. The system of Yu teaches an analytical model used to evaluate and assign priority weights to control components as well as a definition which records changes to the capabilities of these control components. Wang teaches reevaluating priority weights assigned to control components based on changes in their capabilities. These may be combined such that the evaluation of Wang is performed using the analytical model of Yu. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Wang and include that the assigning further comprises: evaluating, at a specified frequency and further evaluating, using the analytical model, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component. Doing so would allow for the system to prioritize functioning control components over those experiencing communication issues. “This is especially beneficial for a NF/service instance of which the address information cannot be resolved previously, and/or a NF/service instance which is unreachable according to its old address information” [Wang ¶ 68].
With regard to claim 5, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
wherein the assigning further comprises: obtaining a suggested priority weight from the first control component; “In some embodiments, predefined rules (suggested priority weight) may also be employed as part of the intent identification and/or widget selection process. For example, a predefined rule may state that users with particular types of context information should be provided with certain widgets” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 36-40].
wherein the adjusting is at least partially based on evaluating, using an analytical model of the computing system, “The method generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 1-5].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach and adjusting the suggested priority weight, by a conflict resolution manager controller of the computing system, resulting in the first priority weight, one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component.
However, Wang teaches:
and adjusting the suggested priority weight, by a conflict resolution manager controller of the computing system, resulting in the first priority weight, “In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the NRF 202 may adjust a priority of the NF/service instance based at least in part on the address information of the NF/service instance. For example, the NRF 202 may decrease a priority of a NF/service instance in the case that an IP address cannot be resolved for the NF/service instance. Alternatively or additionally, a priority of a NF/service instance which is unreachable according to an IP address of the NF/service instance also may be decreased by the NRF 202” [Wang ¶ 67].
one or more changes to one or more capabilities of at least one of the first control component or the second control component. “If no IP address can be resolved from the DNS 203 for a certain UDM instance or a health check on an IP address of a UDM instance shows that the usability of the IP address is low (e.g. long ping response time), then the NRF 202 may adjust the priority of this UDM instance. For example, if UDM-1 's IP address is un-resolvable or unreachable (IP1/IP2/IP3 being unreachable), the NRF 202 may decrease the priority of UDM-1” [Wang ¶ 72].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Beaudoin (US 2018/0260081 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches wherein the operations executed by the at least one processor further comprise: re-assigning the first priority weight at a selected frequency based on receipt of updated workload data representative of an updated workload for execution of the operation at the computing system. “In one example, application 122 executes a multi-step workflow where each step of the workflow is displayed as a set of interface components that are built dynamically based, at least in part, on the type of device, current state of the application, and/or other context information” [Yu Col. 4 Lines 52-54]. “In response to transmitting data to gateway server 130 and/or application server 140, application 122 generally receives a new user interface definition identifying the present step of 40 the workflow, the user interface elements to be displayed on client device 120, and the function(s) to be invoked upon completion of data entry for the present step of the workflow. Gateway server 130 generally receives user input from client device 120 and generates a user interface definition for the client device to display user interface elements for the next step of a workflow based on the received user input” [Yu Col. 5 Lines 37-48]. “In some embodiments, the custom user interface definition may include an ordering of any included plugins or widgets based on relevance to the user … Relevance scores may be calculated, for example, based on correlations identified in a model trained using machine learning algorithms based on historical context data” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 15-17, 24-26 Examiner notes within a multi-step workflow calculating a priority weight of a control component for any subsequent step in the workflow is considered re-assigning the priority weight].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach re-assigning the first priority weight at a selected frequency based on receipt of updated workload data representative of an updated workload for execution of the operation at the computing system.
However, Beaudoin teaches re-assigning the first priority weight at a selected frequency based on receipt of updated workload data representative of an updated workload for execution of the operation at the computing system. “According to an example implementation, a task recommendation engine may receive a variety of different signals, and may generate, and periodically update, a ranked list of tasks for one or more users. The task recommendation engine may generate and update the ranked list of tasks based on, for example, user activity metadata with respect to various sites (e.g., web pages, web sites, web applications or other content), whether a context for a site is stored, general use metadata for various sites, and other signals” [Beaudoin ¶ 42]. “The ranked list of tasks may be frequently updated, e.g., as time changes, or based on additional signals” [Beaudoin ¶ 82].
Beaudoin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of digital task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Beaudoin and include re-assigning the first priority weight at a selected frequency based on receipt of updated workload data representative of an updated workload for execution of the operation at the computing system. Doing so would allow for the system to update the prioritization of control components based on time changes. “Therefore, in this example, the task recommendation engine 120 may then lower the rank (within the ranked list of tasks 122) of a launch mode task for this news website, and may increase the rank of one or more context mode tasks for this website between 10 am and 12 midnight, for example. In this manner, within the ranked list of tasks 122, the tasks that are more likely to be selected or wanted by the user will be ranked higher than the tasks that are less likely to be selected or wanted by the user” [Beaudoin ¶ 82].
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Wilson (US 2015/0195263 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1).
With regard to claim 9, Yu teaches:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor facilitate performance of operations, comprising: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors, performs an operation …” [Yu Claim 15].
receiving a request for performance of an operation by a computing device; “To generate the user interface definition, orchestration engine 134 uses, for example, the information identifying requested relevant step of a workflow and context information to identify one or more plugins and/or widgets to implement the relevant user interface at client device 120” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 50-55].
comparing current workload data, representative of a current workload to be executed using the operation at the computing device, and historical workload data, representative of historical workload executed using the operation at the computing device, “A relevance score may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user (current workload data) may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data (historical workload data) associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38].
wherein the historical workload data comprises historical plugin parameters and historical capabilities for one or more plugins that have historically performed the operation; “In some embodiments, for example, the model is trained using machine learning algorithms that identify statistical correlations between certain widgets and aspects of the context information of the plurality of users from the historical data. The model may, for example, store associations between certain user segments (e.g., users of the plurality of users who have certain combinations of browsing, search, and/or clickstream information, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and the like) and widgets which those user segments historically interacted with” [Yu Col. 3 Lines 56-66]. “In certain embodiments, correlations between user segments and widgets may be stored as vectors (historical plugin parameters) in the model, each vector being associated with a widget and representing the frequency of correlation between the widget and different characteristics present in the user context data for users who interacted with the widget” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 13-19]. “The plugin may identify a collection of widgets to implement on client device 120, application logic associated with the plugin, a list of functions the plugin can invoke, for example via API service 142, permissions associated with the plugin, behaviors of the plugin, intended interactions with other parts of a service, and the like (historical capabilities)” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 3-9]. “Widget selector 430 may also reduce the available set of widgets based on the device capabilities of a client device, only selecting widgets which are compatible with the platform and capabilities of the client device, identified using the context information” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 58-63].
in connection with the comparing, identifying, by an analytical model, “The method generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 1-5]. “… using a model to determine a relevance score for each widget of the set of widgets based on the context information…” [Yu Claim 1].
current capabilities of a first plugin and a second plugin, “The custom user interface definition may omit plugins and/or widgets associated with capabilities not found on the client device” [Yu Col. 19 Line 6-11]. “Widget selector 430 may also reduce the available set of widgets based on the device capabilities of a client device, only selecting widgets which are compatible with the platform and capabilities of the client device, identified using the context information” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 58-63]. “As another example, in a tax preparation application, if context identifier 410 determines based on user profile information received from the client device that a user owns a business, intent identifier 420 may determine that the user intends to view widgets related to business taxes based on correlations stored in the model. Widget selector 430 generally selects widgets for inclusion in a user interface definition based, in part, on the user intent determined by intent identifier 420. Widget selector 430 may also reduce the available set of widgets based on the device capabilities of a client device, only selecting widgets which are compatible with the platform and capabilities of the client device, identified using the context information” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 52-63].
based on one or more of the current capabilities being new capabilities or updated capabilities as compared to previous capabilities of the first plugin or the second plugin; “Plugin definition repository 150 generally stores plugin definitions defined for a specific workflow step. As discussed above, these plugin definitions generally reference one or more widgets defined in widget repository 160 and one or more functions provided by API service 142 that may relate to application logic stored in application logic repository 180. Plugin definition repository 150 may be a versioned repository, and plugin version data may be updated as the configuration of a plugin (e.g., widgets used by the plugin, functions referenced by the plugin, and the like) changes” [Yu Col. 8 Lines 31-41]. “The application state information may include the current version of a user interface specification (widget definitions and/or updated rules for processing user-provided data) for a specific step of a workflow cached at client device 120, the current step of the workflow executing in application 122, 30 and a variation of the application a user is executing (e.g., the version of the application specific to a geographical region that client device 120 is executing application 122 in)” [Yu Col. 5 Lines 26-34].
determining, by the analytical model, the first plugin as having a highest priority weight based on a comparison of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin to the current workload data and the historical workload data; “A relevance score may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38].
Yu further teaches generating privileges for the plugins: “In another example, because the context information received from client device may indicate the type of the client device (e.g., that the client device is a handheld computer, smartphone, tablet, desktop computer, laptop computer, etc.), widget selector 430 may determine that the client device should receive a user interface definition associated with the type of the client device. In further examples, widget selector 430 may select widgets based on, for example, predefined rules (e.g., that users with a particular intent should receive certain widgets), historical data (e.g., other users have interacted with particular widgets in similar contexts), and the like” [Yu Col. 17 Lines 2-13]. However, Yu fails to explicitly teach generating a privilege for performance of the operation by the second plugin based on identification of the request.
However, Wilson teaches generating a privilege for performance of the operation by the second plugin based on identification of the request; “А particular plugin (second plugin), installed in advance on а system, can be marked as а trusted plugin by being associated with а "trusted" flag. This plugin would automatically receive additional privileges based on the fact that this trusted flag is set. А browser thus can enforce system security by returning а trusted interface only to а plugin that is determined to have appropriate access privileges” [Wilson ¶ 20].
Wilson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of plug-ins. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Wilson and include generating a privilege for performance of the operation by the second plugin based on identification of the request. Doing so would allow for further system security. “А browser thus can enforce system security by returning а trusted interface only to а plugin that is determined to have appropriate access privileges” [Wilson ¶ 20].
Yu in view of Wilson fails to explicitly teach and communicating with the second plugin to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin.
However, Popli teaches and communicating with the second plugin to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin; “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files (operations) and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file. Application broker service 120 can then interface with operating system 110 to cause the selected application, as opposed to any application specified in the intercepted request to open the file, to be used to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17]. “An application to open the file can be selected based on a location of the file. The selected application can then be invoked to open the file” [Popli ¶ 4]. “Turning to FIG. 3C, once it has selected the application to open the file, in step 7, application broker service 120 can modify the request to open the file (or create a different request) to cause the selected application to open the file as opposed to the application (e.g., the default application) that filing opening component 111 specified. In this example, this may entail specifying a browser as the application to be launched by the call to the CreateProcess function and specifying a URL that identifies Office 365 Word and the file to be opened (e.g., using a unique identifier of the file within OneDrive)” [Popli ¶ 26]. “… file opening component 111 (which could be explorer.exe) could call some version of the CreateProcess function and specify "C:\ProgramFiles\Microsoft Office\Office16\winword.exe" and "C:\Users\User1\Desktop\document.docx" as arguments. As a result, Microsoft Word would be launched and would be passed the file path/name so that it would open the file” [Popli ¶ 15].
Popli is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Popli and include communicating with the second plugin to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin. Doing so would allow for the selected best component to complete the operation. “In this way, application broker service 120 can ensure that there will be no failure to open the file and that the selected application is a preferred/best application for opening the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
With regard to claim 10, Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, as referenced above. Yu in view of Wilson fails to teach wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: further basing the selecting on an interception of the request to first plugin of the computing device.
However, Popli teaches wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: further basing the selecting on an interception of the request to first plugin of the computing device. “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
With regard to claim 13, Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: registering, by a conflict resolution manager controller of the system, the first plugin and the second plugin, with the conflict resolution manager controller, “Each plugin (e.g., 242 and 252) and widget (e.g., 244 and 254) may be registered in a central configuration service, such as registry 260 (conflict resolution manager controller). Registry 260 represents a centrally managed service that manages the plugin and widget configurations that may be used by applications hosted in shells 210, 220, or 230 to provide customized user experiences (e.g., a particular set of widgets) based on context information. The registry 260 generally may be responsible for delivering applicable configuration data for a specific application. Registry 260 may be representative of functionality described with respect to plugin definition repository 150, widget repository 160, and UI component repository 170 in FIG. 1” [Yu Col. 10 Lines 47-56].
the registering of the first plugin and the second plugin comprising registering the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin “Plugin definition repository 150 generally stores plugin definitions defined for a specific workflow step. As discussed above, these plugin definitions generally reference one or more widgets defined in widget repository 160 and one or more functions provided by API service 142 that may relate to application logic stored in application logic repository 180. Plugin definition repository 150 may be a versioned repository, and plugin version data may be updated as the configuration of a plugin (e.g., widgets used by the plugin, functions referenced by the plugin, and the like) changes” [Yu Col. 8 Lines 31-41]. “The plugin may identify a collection of widgets to implement on client device 120, application logic associated with the plugin, a list of functions the plugin can invoke, for example via API service 142, permissions associated with the plugin, behaviors of the plugin, intended interactions with other parts of a service, and the like (current capabilities)” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 3-9].
wherein a result of the registering is employed by the analytical model for the identifying of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin. “Registry 260 represents a centrally managed service that manages the plugin and widget configurations that may be used by applications hosted in shells 210, 220, or 230 to provide customized user experiences (e.g., a particular set of widgets) based on context information. The registry 260 generally may be responsible for delivering applicable configuration data for a specific application” [Yu Col. 10 Lines 49-56]. “The operation generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model. The operation further includes receiving context information from the client device. The operation further includes determining a user intent based on the context information using the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 38-45].
With regard to claim 14, Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, as referenced above. Yu further teaches wherein the request is generated by a user device associated with a user entity associated with the computing device, “For example, suppose that application 122 is a tax preparation application executing on a mobile device and that the user (user entity) of client device 120 (user device) is attempting to provide wage income data to application 122. Orchestration engine 134 may identify multiple widgets that can be executed on client device 120 to allow a user to import wage income data into application 122” [Yu Col. 7 Lines 32-38].
Yu in view of Wilson fails to explicitly teach and wherein the request is obtained by the computing device by intercepting the request.
However, Popli teaches and wherein the request is obtained by the computing device by intercepting the request. “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Wilson (US 2015/0195263 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Qu (US 2024/0314197 A1).
With regard to claim 12, Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, as referenced above. Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli fails explicitly to teach wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: performing an impact assessment comprising a prediction of computing device performance metrics to result from the performance of the operation by the first plugin and by the second plugin; and further basing the selecting on result data resulting from the performing of the impact assessment.
However, Qu teaches wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: performing an impact assessment comprising a prediction of computing device performance metrics to result from the performance of the operation by the first plugin and by the second plugin; “In some embodiments of the preset disclosure, the determining the task allocation strategy with the best performance from the at least one task allocation strategy includes: predicting, by the third functional component, a performance of each task allocation strategy; and determining the task allocation strategy with the best performance based on the predicted performance of each task allocation strategy” [Qu ¶ 43-44].
and further basing the selecting on result data resulting from the performing of the impact assessment. “generating, by the third functional component, at least one task allocation strategy through a second strategy, based on the resource graph and the computation graph; determining a task allocation strategy with a best performance from the at least one task allocation strategy; and performing the task allocation based on the task allocation strategy with the best performance; where the task allocation strategy is configured to allocate the task to be processed to at least one IoT device” [Qu ¶ 40].
Qu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of digital task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Qu and include that the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: performing an impact assessment comprising a prediction of computing device performance metrics to result from the performance of the operation by the first plugin and by the second plugin; and further basing the selecting on result data resulting from the performing of the impact assessment. Doing so would allow for further efficiency and flexibility of task scheduling in a manner optimized for heterogenous environments with limited resources. “Therefore, a resource-constrained and highly heterogeneous IoT device may be efficiently managed and flexibly scheduled, that is, the resource-constrained and highly heterogeneous IoT device may be fully utilized to perform the task to be processed (such as computationally intensive deep learning task)” [Qu ¶ 94].
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Sato (US 2020/0019591 A1).
With regard to claim 15, Yu teaches:
A method, comprising: registering, by a conflict resolution manager (CRM) controller of a system comprising at least one processor, “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of an orchestration engine 134 (CRM controller). As illustrated, orchestration engine 134 generally includes a context identifier 410, an intent identifier 420, a widget selector 430, and a user interface definition generator 440” [Yu Col. 15 Lines 54-58]. “Another embodiment provides a computer-readable storage medium having instructions, which, when executed on a processor, performs an operation for customizing deployment of an application to a user interface of a client device” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 16-19]. “Data layer 360 generally stores data models and user data at a local device and delivers the data to a remote source.” [Yu Col. 15 Lines 20-21].
a subset of control components of a set of control components of the system, “Each plugin (e.g., 242 and 252) and widget (e.g., 244 and 254) may be registered in a central configuration service, such as registry 260 (conflict resolution manager controller). Registry 260 represents a centrally managed service that manages the plugin and widget configurations that may be used by applications hosted in shells 210, 220, or 230 to provide customized user experiences (e.g., a particular set of widgets) based on context information. The registry 260 generally may be responsible for delivering applicable configuration data for a specific application. Registry 260 may be representative of functionality described with respect to plugin definition repository 150, widget repository 160, and UI component repository 170 in FIG. 1” [Yu Col. 10 Lines 47-56].
wherein the registering comprises logging operation capabilities of the subset of control components; “Plugin definition repository 150 generally stores plugin definitions defined for a specific workflow step. As discussed above, these plugin definitions generally reference one or more widgets defined in widget repository 160 and one or more functions provided by API service 142 that may relate to application logic stored in application logic repository 180. Plugin definition repository 150 may be a versioned repository, and plugin version data may be updated as the configuration of a plugin (e.g., widgets used by the plugin, functions referenced by the plugin, and the like) changes” [Yu Col. 8 Lines 31-41]. “The plugin may identify a collection of widgets to implement on client device 120, application logic associated with the plugin, a list of functions the plugin can invoke, for example via API service 142, permissions associated with the plugin, behaviors of the plugin, intended interactions with other parts of a service, and the like (operational capabilities)” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 3-9].
comparing, via an analytical model of the system, “The method generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 1-5].
first capabilities, of the operation capabilities, associated with a first control component of the subset, with second capabilities, of the operation capabilities, associated with a second control component of the subset; “Relevance to the user may be determined by, for example, assigning relevance scores to widgets based on correlations between the user context information and predefined rules (e.g., rules may define that certain user context information is associated with certain widgets) and/or historical data (e.g., data about other similar users' interactions with user interface components)” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 17-24]. “Context identifier 410 generally identifies information provided by a client device (e.g., client device 120 in FIG.1), such as information about the requested step of a workflow, the capabilities of the client device, clickstream data, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and information about cached data at the client device, to be used in identifying one or more plugins and/or widgets to add to a generated user interface definition” [Yu Col. 15 Lines 59-67]. “A relevance score may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38 Examiner notes the ranking of control components by relevance is considered a comparison of their operational capabilities].
ranking, by the CRM controller, the first and second control components of the subset, wherein the ranking is performed based on an operation comprised by the operation capabilities; “Intent identifier 420 may then compare the user's vector to each of the vectors for the widgets using a similarity metric (e.g., cosine similarity), ranking each widget in order of relevance based on a degree of similarity. Intent identifier 420 may therefore determine user intent by identifying the widgets which are relevant to the user.” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 21-27].
evaluating, via the analytical model, “The model may be trained using historical context information of a plurality of users of the application, which is provided as input to machine learning algorithms that identify correlations between user segments and widgets that users in the user segments interacted with” [Yu Col. 16 Lines 9-13].
the first capabilities and the second capabilities based on historical workload data comprising a result of a historical performance of the operation; “In some embodiments, for example, the model is trained using machine learning algorithms that identify statistical correlations between certain widgets and aspects of the context information of the plurality of users from the historical data. The model may, for example, store associations between certain user segments (e.g., users of the plurality of users who have certain combinations of browsing, search, and/or clickstream information, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and the like) and widgets which those user segments historically interacted with” [Yu Col. 3 Lines 60-66].
generating, by the CRM controller, priorities for performance of the operation by the first and second control components based on the ranking as modified by the evaluating; “The model may then be used at run-time to determine user intent and identify widgets relevant to a user based on context information of the user, such as by using a similarity metric to determine the user's similarity to the user segments associated with widgets in the model. Relevant widgets may then be provided in order of relevance to the user as part of a user interface definition which defines a step of a workflow to be presented to the user” [Yu Col. 4 Lines 3-11].
Yu fails to explicitly teach generating, by the CRM controller, a first permission for a performance of a first sub-portion of the operation by a non-selected one of the first control component or the second control component, based on a request for performance of the operation at the system having been received by the system; and generating, by the CRM controller, a second permission for the performance of a second sub-portion of the operation by a selected one of the first control component or the second control component of the subset, based on the priorities.
However, Sato teaches generating, by the CRM controller, a first permission for a performance of a first sub-portion of the operation by a non-selected one of the first control component or the second control component, based on a request for performance of the operation at the system having been received by the system; and generating, by the CRM controller, a second permission for the performance of a second sub-portion of the operation by a selected one of the first control component or the second control component of the subset, based on the priorities. “Each process is implemented by a module called a "plug-in" that is prepared in advance for each content of process. That is, the manager defines the content of process by combining the plug-ins and generates a flow corresponding to a service content provided by the information processing apparatus 10” [Sato ¶ 40]. “As described above, the plug-in is a module that performs an individual process in the information processing apparatus 10. In the example in FIG. 3, plug-ins that perform an "OCR" process, a "barcode reading process", and a "blank determination process" are set” [Sato ¶ 44]. “The operation of the information processing apparatus 10 will be illustratively described using an example of selecting a plurality of plug-ins as the process of the processing part 15 using the flow definition and changing the parameter value of at least one parameter included in each plug-in” [Sato ¶ 155]. “That is, the processed document is generated in an order of "document 1 on which the process having the third priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];,"document 1 on which the process having the second priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];," document 1 on which the process having the first priority level is executed"…” [Sato ¶ 185].
Sato is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of digital task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Sato and include generating, by the CRM controller, a first permission for a performance of a first sub-portion of the operation by a non-selected one of the first control component or the second control component, based on a request for performance of the operation at the system having been received by the system; and generating, by the CRM controller, a second permission for the performance of a second sub-portion of the operation by a selected one of the first control component or the second control component of the subset, based on the priorities. Doing so would allow for changes to the order in which functions are executed using different control components. “While an example of performing processes in an order of the OCR process, the barcode reading process, and the blank determination process is illustratively described, the process order of plug-ins may be set by the flow definition for each information processing apparatus 10 or each flow definition ID. For example, in a case where the priority level of the plug-in is set to be increased in an order of "barcode reading process", "OCR process">"blank determination process" in a flow definition associated with a different flow definition ID, the processed document in the other flow definition is generated in a different order from the process order described above” [Sato 161-162].
With regard to claim 16, Yu in view of Sato teaches the method of claim 15, as referenced above. Yu further teaches wherein the first control component and the second control component comprise plugins of, or to be installed at, at least one of the system or a management console of the system. “As illustrated, system architecture 200 generally includes a mobile shell 210, a web shell 220, and a desktop shell 230, each of which may communicate with one or more shell sandbox APIs, such as the mobile shell sandbox API 240 and the web shell sandbox API 250, to access application utilities and other capabilities provided by a shell runtime, as discussed in further detail herein” [Yu Col. 9 Lines 17-23]. “Shells 210, 220, and 230 may host a variety of applications that share user interface components (e.g., widgets and plugins) to implement different functionalities” [Yu Col. 11 Lines 16-18, Fig. 2].
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Sato (US 2020/0019591 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Yu in view of Sato teaches the method of claim 15, as referenced above. Yu further teaches the request for the operation to be performed at the system; “To generate the user interface definition, orchestration engine 134 uses, for example, the information identifying requested relevant step of a workflow and context information to identify one or more plugins and/or widgets to implement the relevant user interface at client device 120” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 50-55].
Yu fails to explicitly teach and generating, by the CRM controller, the first permission in response to the request.
However, Sato teaches and generating, by the CRM controller, the first permission in response to the request. “The information processing apparatus 10 is an apparatus that executes various processes defined in a preset process procedure on a document input from the device 20 in accordance with the process procedure” [Sato ¶ 33]. “As described above, the plug-in is a module that performs an individual process in the information processing apparatus 10. In the example in FIG. 3, plug-ins that perform an "OCR" process, a "barcode reading process", and a "blank determination process" are set” [Sato ¶ 44].
Yu in view of Sato fails to explicitly teach intercepting, by the CRM controller, a request for the operation to be performed at the system.
However, Popli teaches intercepting, by the CRM controller, a request for the operation to be performed at the system; “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
Popli is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Popli and include intercepting, by the CRM controller, a request for the operation to be performed at the system. Doing so would allow for the selected best component to complete the operation. “In this way, application broker service 120 can ensure that there will be no failure to open the file and that the selected application is a preferred/best application for opening the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
With regard to claim 19, Yu in view of Sato teaches the method of claim 15, as referenced above. Yu fails to explicitly teach further comprising: sending, by the CRM controller, data defining the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset.
However, Sato teaches the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset. “The operation of the information processing apparatus 10 will be illustratively described using an example of selecting a plurality of plug-ins as the process of the processing part 15 using the flow definition and changing the parameter value of at least one parameter included in each plug-in” [Sato ¶ 155]. “As described above, the plug-in is a module that performs an individual process in the information processing apparatus 10. In the example in FIG. 3, plug-ins that perform an "OCR" process, a "barcode reading process", and a "blank determination process" are set” [Sato ¶ 44]. “That is, the processed document is generated in an order of "document 1 on which the process having the third priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];,"document 1 on which the process having the second priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];," document 1 on which the process having the first priority level is executed"…” [Sato ¶ 185].
Yu in view of Sato fails to explicitly teach further comprising: sending, by the CRM controller, data defining the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset.
However, Popli teaches further comprising: sending, by the CRM controller, data defining the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset. “As an overview, overlay 130 can be configured to detect requests to open files (operations) and can intercept such requests and redirect them to application broker service 120. Application broker service 120 can use dynamic application selection database 121 to select an application to open the file. Application broker service 120 can then interface with operating system 110 to cause the selected application (control component), as opposed to any application specified in the intercepted request to open the file, to be used to open the file” [Popli ¶ 17]. “Turning to FIG. 3C, once it has selected the application to open the file, in step 7, application broker service 120 can modify the request to open the file (or create a different request) to cause the selected application to open the file as opposed to the application (e.g., the default application) that filing opening component 111 specified” [Popli ¶ 26].
Popli is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Popli and include further comprising: sending, by the CRM controller, data defining the first permission and the second permission to the first and second control components of the control components of the subset. Doing so would allow for the notification of selected components to complete the operation. “In this way, application broker service 120 can ensure that there will be no failure to open the file and that the selected application is a preferred/best application for opening the file” [Popli ¶ 17].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Sato (US 2020/0019591 A1) in view of Beaudoin (US 2018/0260081 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Yu in view of Sato teaches the method of claim 15, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
further comprising: re-ranking, by the CRM controller, the control components of the subset, relative to the operation, “If input processor 132 determines that the current version of a user interface definition, a plugin, or a widget cached at client device 120 is outdated, no longer relevant, or does not exist at client device 120, input processor can invoke orchestration engine 134 to generate an appropriate user interface definition for an associated step of a workflow” [Yu Col. 6 Lines 34-39 Examiner notes generating another user interface definition involves ranking the control components and is thus considered re-ranking].
based on at least one of updated operation capabilities of the first and second control components of the control components of the subset or updated performance metrics of the system. “Plugin definition repository 150 generally stores plugin definitions defined for a specific workflow step. As discussed above, these plugin definitions generally reference one or more widgets defined in widget repository 160 and one or more functions provided by API service 142 that may relate to application logic stored in application logic repository 180. Plugin definition repository 150 may be a versioned repository, and plugin version data may be updated as the configuration of a plugin (operation capabilities) (e.g., widgets used by the plugin, functions referenced by the plugin, and the like) changes” [Yu Col. 8 Lines 31-41]. “Each plugin (e.g., 242 and 252) and widget (e.g., 244 and 254) may be registered in a central configuration service, such as registry 260. Registry 260 represents a centrally managed service that manages the plugin and widget configurations that may be used by applications hosted in shells 210, 220, or 230 to provide customized user experiences (e.g., a particular set of widgets) based on context information. The registry 260 generally may be responsible for delivering applicable configuration data for a specific application. Registry 260 may be representative of functionality described with respect to plugin definition repository 150, widget repository 160, and UI component repository 170 in FIG. 1” [Yu Col. 10 Lines 47-56].
Yu in view of Sato fails to explicitly teach at a selected frequency.
However, Beaudoin teaches at a selected frequency “According to an example implementation, a task recommendation engine may receive a variety of different signals, and may generate, and periodically update, a ranked list of tasks for one or more users. The task recommendation engine may generate and update the ranked list of tasks based on, for example, user activity metadata with respect to various sites (e.g., web pages, web sites, web applications or other content), whether a context for a site is stored, general use metadata for various sites, and other signals” [Beaudoin ¶ 42]. “The ranked list of tasks may be frequently updated, e.g., as time changes, or based on additional signals” [Beaudoin ¶ 82].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Beaudoin and include at a selected frequency. Doing so would allow for a further optimized system which takes into account temporal context information. “Therefore, in this example, the task recommendation engine 120 may then lower the rank (within the ranked list of tasks 122) of a launch mode task for this news website, and may increase the rank of one or more context mode tasks for this website between 10 am and 12 midnight, for example. In this manner, within the ranked list of tasks 122, the tasks that are more likely to be selected or wanted by the user will be ranked higher than the tasks that are less likely to be selected or wanted by the user” [Beaudoin ¶ 82].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2015/0195263 A1).
With regard to claim 22, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: prior to or in connection with the overriding, requesting a privilege corresponding to the second component for performance of the operation based on the data defining the request.
However, Wilson teaches wherein the operations further comprise: prior to or in connection with the overriding, requesting a privilege corresponding to the second component for performance of the operation based on the data defining the request. “In response to receiving 305 а request from а plugin for а trusted interface, the system determines 310 the level of privileges assigned to the plugin. In some implementations, the request for а trusted interface includes an interface identifier string that has а "trusted" substring” [Wilson ¶ 35]. “А particular plugin (second plugin), installed in advance on а system, can be marked as а trusted plugin by being associated with а "trusted" flag. This plugin would automatically receive additional privileges based on the fact that this trusted flag is set. А browser thus can enforce system security by returning а trusted interface only to а plugin that is determined to have appropriate access privileges” [Wilson ¶ 20].
Wilson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of plug-ins. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Wilson and include wherein the operations further comprise: prior to or in connection with the overriding, requesting a privilege corresponding to the second component for performance of the operation based on the data defining the request. Doing so would allow for further system security. “А browser thus can enforce system security by returning а trusted interface only to а plugin that is determined to have appropriate access privileges” [Wilson ¶ 20].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Tokarev Sela (US 2021/0042589 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Rowley (US 2008/0208960 A1).
With regard to claim 23, Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli teaches the system of claim 1, as referenced above. Yu further teaches:
and assigning at least one of the first priority weight or the second priority weight based on at least one of the first suggested priority weight or the second suggested priority weight. “Relevance to the user may be determined by, for example, assigning relevance scores to widgets based on correlations between the user context information and predefined rules (e.g., rules may define that certain user context information is associated with certain widgets) and/or historical data (e.g., data about other similar users' interactions with user interface components)” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 17-24].
Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a first suggested priority weight from the first control component; obtaining a second suggested priority weight from the second control component; at least one of the first suggested priority weight or the second suggested priority weight.
However, Rowley teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a first suggested priority weight from the first control component; obtaining a second suggested priority weight from the second control component; “After, the plug-in has been initialized or during the initialization process the plug-in may generate a registration request or call the registration module (block 211). The registration module may handle each of the registration requests in a first in first out, prioritized or similar processing order scheme. The registration module may retrieve configuration, priority and dependency data for each plug-in as its registration request is received from a configuration file or similar source (block 213) … In another embodiment, the registration requests may include the priority (suggested priority) and dependency data” [Rowley ¶ 34].
at least one of the first suggested priority weight or the second suggested priority weight; “The plug-in initialization module may start the process of initializing each of the plugins for the LDAP directory server. The LDAP directory server may also initialize its registration module to service registration requests from the plug-ins (block 205). The registration module may record or start an insertion operation to add each plug-in to the callback order list” [Rowley ¶ 32]. “After, the plug-in has been initialized or during the initialization process the plug-in may generate a registration request or call the registration module (block 211). The registration module may handle each of the registration requests in a first in first out, prioritized or similar processing order scheme. The registration module may retrieve configuration, priority and dependency data for each plug-in as its registration request is received from a configuration file or similar source (block 213) … In another embodiment, the registration requests may include the priority (suggested priority) and dependency data” [Rowley ¶ 34].
Rowley is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of plug-ins. The system of Yu assigns priority weights to control components based on a variety of data and correlation information. Rowley teaches an initial registering of control components with a priority weight. These can be combined such that the priority weight assignment of Yu is based on a registered priority weight from the control components as taught by Rowley. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Tokarev Sela in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Rowley and include that the operations further comprise: obtaining a first suggested priority weight from the first control component; obtaining a second suggested priority weight from the second control component; at least one of the first suggested priority weight or the second suggested priority weight. Doing so would allow for an initial registration of control component priorities to be utilized in the scheduling process. “Priority attribute values indicate the level of importance assigned by a programmer, administrator, user or similar entity to the execution of the plug-in or callback” [Rowley ¶ 49].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 10,732,952 B1) in view of Wilson (US 2015/0195263 A1) in view of Popli (US 2023/0035500 A1) in view of Sato (US 2020/0019591 A1).
With regard to claim 24, Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, as referenced above. Yu further teaches wherein the operations, the performance of which is facilitated by the at least one processor, further comprise: based on the comparison of the current capabilities of the first plugin and the second plugin to the current workload data, on the historical workload data, and on the data defining the request, (selecting a plugin) “The method generally includes training a model based on historical context information of a plurality of users by identifying correlations between the historical context information and a plurality of widgets and storing the correlations in the model” [Yu Col. 2 Lines 1-5]. “Relevance to the user may be determined by, for example, assigning relevance scores to widgets based on correlations between the user context information and predefined rules (e.g., rules may define that certain user context information is associated with certain widgets) and/or historical data (e.g., data about other similar users' interactions with user interface components)” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 17-24]. “Context identifier 410 generally identifies information provided by a client device (e.g., client device 120 in FIG.1), such as information about the requested step of a workflow, the capabilities of the client device, clickstream data, user preferences, user profile information, geographic location information, and information about cached data at the client device, to be used in identifying one or more plugins and/or widgets to add to a generated user interface definition” [Yu Col. 15 Lines 59-67]. “A relevance score may be representative of a degree of similarity between a user's context information and the historical context information that is correlated with a particular widget in the model. For example, the context information of the user may be stored as a vector, and may be compared using cosine similarity to vectors representing the historical context data associated with widgets (e.g., based on users with certain context information historically interacting with the widgets). The more similar a user's vector is to a widget's vector, the higher the relevance score will be for that widget” [Yu Col. 19 Lines 28-38 Examiner notes the ranking of control components by relevance is considered a comparison of their operational capabilities].
Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli fails to explicitly teach instructing the first plugin to perform a first sub-portion of the operation, wherein the communicating to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin comprises instructing the second plugin to perform a second sub-portion of the operation, different from the first sub-portion of the operation.
However, Sato teaches instructing the first plugin to perform a first sub-portion of the operation, wherein the communicating to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin comprises instructing the second plugin to perform a second sub-portion of the operation, different from the first sub-portion of the operation. “Each process is implemented by a module called a "plug-in" that is prepared in advance for each content of process. That is, the manager defines the content of process by combining the plug-ins and generates a flow corresponding to a service content provided by the information processing apparatus 10” [Sato ¶ 40]. “As described above, the plug-in is a module that performs an individual process in the information processing apparatus 10. In the example in FIG. 3, plug-ins that perform an "OCR" process, a "barcode reading process", and a "blank determination process" are set” [Sato ¶ 44]. “That is, in a flow that is represented by a flow definition ID of "0001", the "OCR process", the "barcode reading process", and the "blank determination process" are executed” [Sato ¶ 46]. “That is, the processed document is generated in an order of "document 1 on which the process (first sub-portion) having the third priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];,"document 1 on which the process (second sub-portion) having the second priority level is executed"[Wingdings font/0xE0];," document 1 on which the process having the first priority level is executed"…” [Sato ¶ 185].
Sato is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of digital task scheduling strategies. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu in view of Wilson in view of Popli to incorporate the teachings of Sato and include instructing the first plugin to perform a first sub-portion of the operation, wherein the communicating to instruct the performance of the operation by the second plugin comprises instructing the second plugin to perform a second sub-portion of the operation, different from the first sub-portion of the operation. Doing so would allow for changes to the order in which functions are executed using different plugins. “While an example of performing processes in an order of the OCR process, the barcode reading process, and the blank determination process is illustratively described, the process order of plug-ins may be set by the flow definition for each information processing apparatus 10 or each flow definition ID. For example, in a case where the priority level of the plug-in is set to be increased in an order of "barcode reading process", "OCR process">"blank determination process" in a flow definition associated with a different flow definition ID, the processed document in the other flow definition is generated in a different order from the process order described above” [Sato 161-162].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
I. Yu, Popli, Handa, and/or Brzozowski, either separately or in any combination, fail to teach and/or suggest at least this combination of features of amended, independent claim 1 of the subject application.
For example, for a previous feature of "overriding" of claim 15, the Office turns to Brzozowski at page 39 of the Office Action. The Office contends that Brzozowski discloses, and Brzozowski discloses at para. [0067]:
Upon detection of one or more devices attempting to provide services (e.g., IP-related services) for the premises or a conflict, or attempted use, of the authoritative premises network device's IP configuration, the intended authoritative device can disable the alternate devices ... Such operation can prevent or disable the delivery of unauthorized IP services in the premise, as well as address attempts to leverage overlapping IP configurations in the premise.
However, preventing or disabling delivery of unauthorized IP services, and/or disabling an alternate device, is not the same as overriding a priority weight for use in selecting a device to perform an operation. At most, such para. [0067] of Brzozowski may refer to overriding or preventing a performance of an operation.
Further, Brzozowki fails to teach and/or suggest its disabling, or more specifically overriding of a priority weight for use in selecting a device to perform an operation, based on data defining the request, or even more generally, in response to identification of the request.
Yu, Popli, and/or Handa fail to make up for the deficiencies of Brzozowski noted above.
In view of the foregoing, the art cited fail to teach and/or suggest each and every feature of amended, independent claim 1. Thus claim 1, and claims 2 and 7 depending therefrom are nonobvious over the art cited. Claim 6 is canceled herein rendering moot the rejection of claim 6. Withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 is respectfully requested.
a) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 22-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
II. Yu, Popli, Handa, and/or Brzozowski, either separately or in any combination, fail to
teach and/or suggest at least this combination of features of amended, independent claim 1 of the subject application.
For example, for a previous feature of "overriding" of claim 15, the Office turns to Brzozowski at page 39 of the Office Action. The Office contends that Brzozowski discloses, and Brzozowski discloses at para. [0067]: Upon detection of one or more devices attempting to provide services (e.g., IP-related services) for the premises or a conflict, or attempted use, of the authoritative premises network device's IP configuration, the intended authoritative device can disable the alternate devices ... Such operation can prevent or disable the delivery of unauthorized IP services in the premise, as well as address attempts to leverage overlapping IP configurations in the
premise.
However, preventing or disabling delivery of unauthorized IP services, and/or disabling an alternate device, is not the same as generating a privilege for performance of an operation by a second plugin counter to the priority weights for a first plugin and a second plugin determined by an analytical model. At most, such para. [0067] of Brzozowski may refer to overriding or preventing a performance of an operation. Brzozowski fails to teach and/or suggest any privilege even similar to that recited at amended, independent claim 9 of the subject application.
Yu, Popli, and/or Handa fail to make up for the deficiencies of Brzozowski noted above.
In view of the foregoing, the art cited fail to teach and/or suggest each and every feature of amended, independent claim 9. Thus claim 9, and claims 10, 13, and 14 depending therefrom are nonobvious over the art cited. Withdrawal of the rejections of claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 is respectfully requested.
a) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “generating a privilege for performance of an operation by a second plugin counter to the priority weights for a first plugin and a second plugin determined by an analytical model”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-10, 12-14, and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
III. Yu, Popli, Handa, and/or Brzozowski, either separately or in any combination, fail to
teach and/or suggest at least this combination of features of amended, independent claim 1 of the subject application.
For example, these references may separately disclose selecting a plugin, component, device, widget, etc. for performance of an operation at a computer system. However, these references, either separately or in any combination, fail to teach and/or suggest performance of such operation by a combination of such plugins, components, devices, widgets, etc. based on a combination of priority weights and a request for performance of the operation.
In view of the foregoing, the art cited fail to teach and/or suggest each and every feature of amended, independent claim 15. Thus claim 15, and claim 16 depending therefrom, are nonobvious over the art cited. Withdrawal of the rejections of claims 15 and 16 is respectfully requested.
a) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI F RIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.F.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights