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 § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2(a)( 1 ) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated US 20110113359 A1 ( Massey et. al). Regarding claim 1, Massey teaches, a method comprising: determining a lowest service version among a plurality of different service versions generating a parent operator based on the lowest service version (paragraph 4, 16, 19, 80 a model feed that stores a model feed, with the parent being the lowest service version, and the child being defined as branching off the parent) ; for each subsequent service version of the plurality of service versions: determining an incremental capability of the subsequent service version; and generating a corresponding child operator based on the incremental capability, wherein the corresponding child operator includes logic and code paths corresponding to the incremental capability, resulting in a set of child operators ( paragraph 4-6, 16-20, 65, 77, 80-92, model branching and model merging, allowing the child to merge into the parent; a model feed that stores a model feed, with the parent being the lowest service version, and the child being defined as branching off the parent, these children include incremental differences) ; receiving a request identifying a particular subsequent service version; identifying from the set of child operators, by a processing device, a first child operator corresponding to the particular subsequent service version; and integrating, by the parent operator, the first child operator into the parent operator to respond to the request ( paragraph 4- 6, 16- 20, 65, 77, 80- 92, model branching and model merging, allowing the child to merge into the parent ) . Regarding claim 2, Massey teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising: as each child operator of the set of child operators is generated, registering the child operator with the parent operator to maintain a mapping of each subsequent service version to its corresponding child operator; and for each child operator of the set of child operators, maintaining an associated flag indicating whether the parent operator is to integrate the child operator (paragraph 5, 6, 20, 65, 77, 92, model branching and model merging, allowing the child to merge into the parent) . Regarding claim 3, Massey teaches, the method of claim 2, further comprising: in response to the first child operator being identified, modifying the flag associated with the first child operator to indicate that the first child operator is to be integrated into the parent operator, wherein integrating the first child operator into the parent operator comprises: modifying logic and code paths of the parent operator with logic and code paths of the first child operator without recompiling the parent operator (paragraph 5, 6, 20, 65, 77, 92, model branching and model merging, allowing the child to merge into the parent, creating a new model version) . Regarding claim 4, Massey teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein determining the incremental capability of a particular subsequent service version comprises: determining the incremental capability based on a difference between a functionality of the particular subsequent service version and a functionality of the lowest service version (paragraph 4-6 , 16, 19, 80 a model feed that stores a model feed, with the parent being the lowest service version, and the child being defined as branching off the parent, these children include incremental differences, see paragraph 80-81) . Regarding claim 5, Massey teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein determining the incremental capability of a particular subsequent higher version comprises: determining the incremental capability based on a difference between a functionality of the particular subsequent higher version and a functionality of a previous subsequent higher service version (paragraph 4-6 16, 19, 80 a model feed that stores a model feed, with the parent being the lowest service version, and the child being defined as branching off the parent, these children include incremental differences, see paragraph 80-81, being able to compare between children, paragraph 45, 46, 65, a pointer from a child to another child showing dependencies) . Regarding claim 6, Massey teaches, the method of claim 5, wherein each child operator includes a pointer to one or more other child operators that the child operator depends on (paragraph 45, 46, 65, a pointer from a child to another child showing dependencies) . Regarding claim 7, Massey teaches, the method of claim 6, wherein integrating the first child operator into the parent operator comprises: determining, using a pointer of the first child operator, one or more other child operators of the set of child operators that the first child operator depends on; and integrating the logic and code paths of the first child operator and each of the one or more other child operators into the parent operator (paragraph 5, 6, 20, 65, 77, 92, model branching and model merging, allowing the child to merge into the parent, creating a new model version, said child can combine with at least two other model feeds into the parent) . With regards to Claim 8- 20 teaches the method of Claim 1 - 7 as referenced above. T herefore, claims 8- 20 are rejected with the same rationale as applied to claims 1- 7 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4314 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3759 . 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. /C.M.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2199 /LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199