DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 2/20/2026.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 10 – 12, 14, 19 and 20 are amended.
Claims 6 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14 and 16 – 20 are pending.
35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 10 – 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senarath et al (US 20190109768, hereinafter Senarath), in view of Bernat et al (US 20180278493, hereinafter Bernat), and further in view of Jin et al (US 20230101023, hereinafter Jin).
As per claim 1, Senarath discloses: A method for responding to a request for a resource allocation, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor from a user, a request for a resource allocation that includes first information that relates to at least one resource to be allocated; (Senarath [0109]: “Step 2: SM of the provider receives customer requirements from the customer, which are the initial requirements. These requirements may include high-level service types, e.g., business service templates, isolation, security, charging methods, Geographical areas based time duration based network KPIs, management exposure types, and certain openness.”)
determining, by the at least one processor, that an infeasibility exists with respect to fulfilling the request in a manner that satisfies each of the at least one constraint and the at least one preference, based on the identifying of the at least one condition; generating, by the at least one processor, an actionable recourse for facilitating a fulfillment of the request in a manner that overcomes the infeasibility; and performing, by the at least one processor and based on the generated actionable recourse, an action that facilitates the fulfillment of the request in a manner that overcomes the infeasibility. (Senarath [0115] – [0118]: “Step 5: Feasibility check—VNAC has several steps and options as below after which the SM provide different options to the customer (counter-offers or acceptance of the request for an agreed cost). Feasibility Option 1a for VNAC: SM has all the details of service capability for different service types obtained beforehand from CSMF, NSMF, NSSMF (for one of them or all of them) and check feasibility considering financial aspects. Financial aspects of the resources are obtained from BSS and evaluated (cost for the service, may be dynamically changed if customer agrees to that). Feasibility Option 1b for VNAC: SM asks CSMF, NSMF or NSSMF about feasibility by providing service requirements or high level SLA details. They may come up with different service options for different resource costs. The design of the internal logical network may happen this time. But it may also be a high level feasibility check without the slice design. Step 6: Re-negotiation and SLA preparation: Steps (2)-(5) may be repeated until an agreement is reached with the updated customer requirements. Financial aspects of the resources may be evaluated (e.g. cost for the service, which may be dynamically changed if customer agrees to that).”)
Senarath did not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first input that includes second information that relates to at least one constraint that is mandatory with respect to the request;
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second input that includes third information that relates to at least one preference that is not mandatory;
determining, by the at least one processor via an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm, a minimal unsatisfied constraints set with respect to the request;
identifying, by the at least one processor via the Al algorithm, at least one condition that is impossible to satisfy with respect to the request, based on the minimal unsatisfied constraints set, wherein the at least one condition includes at least one from among the at least one preference and the at least one constraint;
However, Bernat teaches:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first input that includes second information that relates to at least one constraint that is mandatory with respect to the request; receiving, by the at least one processor, a second input that includes third information that relates to at least one preference that is not mandatory; (Bernat [0041]: “application 122-1a may generate an SLA request that desires allocated bandwidth to meet one or more QoS requirements for a point to point connection with another application (target) hosted by a compute node coupled with switch 130. The one or more QoS requirements may be for an SLA associated with the application making the SLA request… Those parameters may include, but are not limited to, a target application for the point to point connection, a requested bandwidth for the point to point connection and whether the one or more QoS requirements for the SLA must be met (hard) or are best effort (soft).”; [0042]: “HFI logic 121-1 may forward or generate a fabric_QoS_request that includes the GPASID assigned to application 122-1a, the target for the point to point connection, requested bandwidth and whether the one or more QoS requirements are hard or soft.”.)
determining, a minimal unsatisfied constraints set with respect to the request; identifying, at least one condition that is impossible to satisfy with respect to the request, based on the minimal unsatisfied constraints set, wherein the at least one condition includes at least one from among the at least one preference and the at least one constraint; (Bernat [0042]: “If none of the potential routes provide enough allocated bandwidth and a soft QoS requirement is indicated in the SLA request, logic and/or features of QoS manager 110 such as manager QoS logic 316 may select a route having a higher available bandwidth for allocation and then send an ACK to HFI logic 121-1 that includes a route ID for the route having a higher available bandwidth compared to other routes, the estimated latency for this route and bandwidth allocated. If none of the potential routes provide enough allocated bandwidth and a hard QoS requirement is indicated in the SLA request, manager QoS logic 316 may send a NACK to HFI logic 121-1. HFI logic 121-1 may forward either an ACK to application 122-1a to indicate the QoS requirements for the SLA request has been met or a NACK to application 122-1a to indicate the QoS requirements for the SLA request have not been met (e.g., not enough available bandwidth or latency times for available routes exceed maximum latency times).”. Examiner notes that the soft QoS requirement is mapped to the claimed “minimal unsatisfied constraint”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bernat into that of Senarath in order to receiving, by the at least one processor, a first input that includes second information that relates to at least one constraint that is mandatory with respect to the request; receiving, by the at least one processor, a second input that includes third information that relates to at least one preference that is not mandatory; determining, a minimal unsatisfied constraints set with respect to the request; identifying, at least one condition that is impossible to satisfy with respect to the request, based on the minimal unsatisfied constraints set, wherein the at least one condition includes at least one from among the at least one preference and the at least one constraint. Senarath [0109] teaches receive customer requirements and [0115] – [0118] teaches generating SLA from the request. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily known that request may comprises hard and soft constraints as well, as it is essential to establishing the SLA, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known part in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Jin teaches:
by the at least one processor via an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm, (Jin [0189])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jin into that of Senarath and Bernat in order to have an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm perform the steps. Using machine learning and AI to improve the scheduling process is well known and used in the field, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try to use AI to implement and improve the process and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Senarath, Bernat and Jin further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the infeasibility exists further comprises: applying a first algorithm that uses at least one mixed-integer optimization technique for identifying at least one a constraint from among the at least one constraint that is impossible to satisfy, and identifying, by the at least one processor via the first algorithm, the constraint from among the at least one constraint that is impossible to satisfy. (Jin [0111] and Bernat [0042])
As per claim 3, the combination of Senarath, Bernat and Jin further teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the generating of the actionable recourse comprises using a subject matter expertise (SME) knowledge database to translate the identified constraint into at least one explanation that is usable for generating the actionable recourse. (Jin [0189])
As per claim 4, the combination of Senarath, Bernat and Jin further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a result of the generating of the actionable recourse. (Jin [0290])
As per claim 5, the combination of Senarath, Bernat and Jin further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a prompt that facilitates a reception of a third input that includes at least one adjustment to the second information included in at least one from among the first input and the second input; determining, by the at least one processor based on the third input, whether the infeasibility has been overcome; when a determination is made that the infeasibility has been overcome, generating a response to the request, and displaying the response via the GUI; and when a determination is made that the infeasibility has not been overcome, generating a revised actionable recourse based on the determination that the infeasibility has not been overcome, and displaying the revised actionable recourse via the GUI. (Senarath [0115] – [0118], and Bernat [00412)
As per claim 10, it is the apparatus variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is the apparatus variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the apparatus variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the apparatus variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the apparatus variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senarath, Bernat and Jin, and further in view of Natarajan (USPAT 10943213).
As per claim 7, Senarath, Bernat and Jin did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with shipping logistics, and the at least one constraint includes at least one requirement that relates to a delivery time.
However, Natarajan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with shipping logistics, and the at least one constraint includes at least one requirement that relates to a delivery time. (Natarajan col 13, lines 20 – 43.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Natarajan into that of Senarath, Bernat and Jin in order to have the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with shipping logistics, and the at least one constraint includes at least one requirement that relates to a delivery time. It is merely an obvious design choice to have the service e request being related to shipping and delivery while the specific constraint being delivery time as they are commonly known and utilized services and its associated constraints, as shown by Natarajan reference. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references by allowing more service and constraint options, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senarath, Bernat and Jin, in view of Loumbis et at (US 20240144185, hereinafter Loumbis).
As per claim 8, Senarath, Bernat and Jin did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with real estate utilization, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of available desks at a particular time.
However, Lioumbis teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with real estate utilization, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of available desks at a particular time. (Lioumbis [0010])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lioumbis into that of Senarath, Bernat and Jin in order to have the request for the resource allocation relates to resources associated with real estate utilization, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of available desks at a particular time. It is merely an obvious design choice to have the service request being related to real estate and constraint being desk availability, as shown by Lioumbis reference. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references by allowing more service and constraint options, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 17, it is the apparatus variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senarath, Bernat and Jin, in view of Ramakrishnan et al (US 20040193472, hereinafter Ramakrishnan).
As per claim 9, Senarath, Bernat and Jin did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to labor resources associated with a task, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of qualified personnel that are required for staffing with respect to the task at a particular time.
However, Ramakrishnan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request for the resource allocation relates to labor resources associated with a task, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of qualified personnel that are required for staffing with respect to the task at a particular time. (Ramakrishnan [0026])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramakrishnan into that of Senarath, Bernat and Jin in order to have the request for the resource allocation relates to labor resources associated with a task, and the at least one constraint includes at least one number of qualified personnel that are required for staffing with respect to the task at a particular time. It is merely an obvious design choice to have the service request being related to labor and constraint being staffing availability, as shown by Lioumbis reference. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references by allowing more service and constraint options, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 18, it is the apparatus variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 14 and 16 – 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196