CTNF 18/348,615 CTNF 84617 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1 and 11-12 are amended as filed on 03/05/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (Patent No. US 8,725,741 B2), hereinafter Cohen, in view of Sakamoto et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0275973 A1), hereinafter Sakamoto, in view of Yang et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0115392 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Kryskow, JR. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2003/0055973 A1), hereinafter Kryskow, and in further view of NANDURU et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0064068 A1), hereinafter Nanduru . 2. With respect to claims 1 and 11-12, Cohen taught a computer-implemented method for defining a performance goal for a system application (2:37-46), the method comprising: for each of a plurality of user interactions with a system application, determining a measure of latency experienced by the user (3:15-29, where the user interaction can be seen in, at least, 2:25-29); for at least of one of the plurality of user interactions with the system application, determining a measure of satisfaction of the user with the interaction (3:30-42, where the analysis can be seen in, at least, 2:42-46); defining a service level objective for the system application based on the target latency value (3:30-40). However, Cohen did not explicitly state wherein determining a measure of satisfaction of the user comprises analyzing a user input response to a request for satisfaction information. On the other hand, Sakamoto did teach wherein determining a measure of satisfaction of the user comprises analyzing a user input response to a request for satisfaction information (0119, where the user survey implicitly teaches a subsequent user action, a user input response, and a presence of a complaint. Likewise, the TTR teaches the time taken limitation. Furthermore, it can be seen in 0115 that all of the listed data is utilized to determine the user satisfaction under broadest reasonable interpretation). Both of the systems of Cohen and Sakamoto are directed towards analyzing system performance and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Cohen, to utilize customer satisfaction surveys combined with time resolution data, as taught by Sakamoto, in order to more accurately determine performance by monitoring a customer’s interpretation of the system’s performance. However, Cohen did not explicitly state plotting a graph of user satisfaction versus latency based on the measure of satisfaction and the measure of latency for each of the plurality of user interactions; fitting a line to the graph: selecting, by a statistical method, a point on the line where user satisfaction corresponds to a minimum acceptable level: identifying a measure of latency corresponding to a measure of satisfaction at the selected point as a target latency value. On the other hand, Yang did teach plotting a graph of user satisfaction versus latency based on the measure of satisfaction and the measure of latency for each of the plurality of user interactions; fitting a line to the graph: selecting, by a statistical method, a point on the line where user satisfaction corresponds to a minimum acceptable level: identifying a measure of latency corresponding to a measure of satisfaction at the selected point as a target latency value (0016 & fig. 1, where the empirical curve can be seen). Both of the systems of Cohen and Yang are directed towards managing latency with respect to user satisfaction and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Cohen to utilize plotting a graph, as taught by Yang, in order to more accurately review and process the data. However, Cohen did not explicitly state continually updating the SLO for each of the plurality of user interactions to mirror user satisfaction as the system application is used. On the other hand, Kryskow did teach continually updating the SLO for each of the plurality of user interactions to mirror user satisfaction as the system application is used (0046, where the user satisfaction is the intended results of the system under broadest reasonable interpretation). Both of the systems of Cohen and Kryskow are directed towards optimizing thresholds and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Cohen, to utilize continuously updating an SLO, as taught by Kryskow, in order to maintain optimization during adjusting workloads. However, Cohen did not explicitly state that the SLO was updated in response to recalculating the target latency value. On the other hand, Nanduru did teach that the SLO was updated in response to recalculating the target latency value (0005, where latency being an identified metric can be seen in 0081). Both of the systems of Cohen and Nanduru are directed towards optimizing thresholds and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Cohen, to utilize continuously updating an SLO that’s response to metric value adjustments, as taught by Nanduru, in order to maintain optimization during adjusting workloads. 3. As for claims 2 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12. In addition, Cohen taught obtaining a measurement of a time taken by the application to respond to a user interaction (2:47-55). 4. As for claims 3 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2 and 13 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught measuring, with a monitoring component, the time taken by the application to respond to a user interaction (2:47-55. See also, 5:11-16). 5. As for claims 5 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught fitting a mathematical equation to the determined measures (8:7-67); analyzing the mathematical equation based on a target satisfaction value to identify a latency value for the target satisfaction value (8:7-67, where the response time is the latency); and determining a target latency value based on the identified latency value (8:7-19). 6. As for claims 6 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught generating a graph of user satisfaction versus latency based on the determined measures of latency and satisfaction (8:7-67, where the graphs of the metrics can be seen, at least, in figure 12); analyzing the generated graph based on a target satisfaction value to identify a latency value for the target satisfaction value (8:7-67, where the graphs of the metrics can be seen, at least, in figure 12); and determining a target latency value based on the identified latency value (8:7-67, where the graphs of the metrics can be seen, at least, in figure 12). 7. As for claims 7 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6 and 17 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught determining a best fit line for the generated graph; and employing statistical analysis to identify a latency value at which the best fit line is closest to the target satisfaction value (7:65 to 8:6, where the curve fitting is the best fit under broadest reasonable interpretation. See also, 7:62-65, the most appropriate value function). 8. As for claims 8 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught defining a requirement for maintaining latency of the system application below the target latency value (8:7-19, the thresholds). 9. As for claims 9 and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Cohen taught defining, based on the target latency, a performance goal for a part of the system application that provides the plurality of user interactions (2:37-46, where the different applications are taught). 10. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Cohen taught defining, based on the target latency, a set of performance goals for the system application (2:37-46, where the different applications are taught). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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. /JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 2 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 3 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 4 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 5 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 6 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 7 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/348,615 Page 8 Art Unit: 2443
Prosecution Insights