DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 10/23/2023.
Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Priority is claimed to Indian application IN202311060729 (filed on 9/9/2023).
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, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al (US 20230281035, hereinafter Robertson), in view of Itani et al (US 20150113420, hereinafter Itani).
As per claim 1, Robertson discloses: A method for providing a task prioritization recommendation for a set of tasks on a set of user devices, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor via a communication interface, first information related to a failure of the set of tasks, from a set of task settlement platforms; retrieving, by the at least one processor from a memory, a set of target parameters related to the failure of the set of tasks; (Robertson [0114]: “In operation 601, a component workflow originating from a batch file is determined to be completed.”; [0115]: “In operation 602, a comparison algorithm, such as a message tree matching algorithm, is executed to compute differences in content of messages between a legacy/baseline system and a new/target system.”. Examiner notes that workflow completion information is mapped to the claimed first information, the difference is mapped to the claimed error, and the content of the message on the legacy/baseline system is mapped to the claimed target parameters.)
analyzing, by the at least one processor using an artificial intelligence-based module, the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks and the set of target parameters; (Robertson [0116]: “In operation 603, the detected differences may be categorized based on its attributes and/or in view of prestored rules. In an example, the detected break or error may be categorized using one or more AI or ML algorithms. According to exemplary aspects, breaks or errors may be categorized based on severity of difference, type of difference, frequency of difference, priority of the component workflow, and the like. In an example, based on the automated categorization of differences, certain differences may be determined to be little or no consequence, and the component workflow including such differences may be deemed to be passed as a whole, which does not require a fix or further review. The passed component workflow with the negligible or explainable differences may be marked with respective metadata for reporting.”.)
generating, by the at least one processor, a composite score for the set of tasks based on the analysis of the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks and the set of target parameters; (Robertson [0117]: “In operation 604, whether the computed differences are excludable or explainable is determined.”; [0118]: “If the detected difference is determined to be excludable or explainable, the differences are excluded from a report and a completion of execution process for the component workflow may be reported in operation 605.”; [0119]: “On the other hand, if the difference is determined not to be excludable/explainable in operation 604, then the method proceeds to operation 606 for notifying engineers/developers of the detected difference in the component workflow.”. Examiner notes that whether the difference is determined to be excludable/explainable or not is mapped to the claimed composite score.)
and [generating], the task prioritization recommendation for the set of tasks based on the composite score for the set of tasks. (Robertson [0120]: “In operation 607, a developer or engineer may fix the component workflow for the detected difference and schedule the fixed component workflow to be reprocessed. In an example, the fixed component workflow may be schedule to be processed again starting from the first stage in a multiple processing stage framework. Further, the fixed component workflow may be inserted in the existing queue of component workflows to be executed, or may be placed behind or ahead of the existing queue of component workflows to be executed. Such determination may be made based on a priority of the respective component workflow. For example, if all of the component workflows of a batch file have been completed except for the fixed component workflow, the fixed component workflow may be scheduled to be processed immediately.”)
Robertson did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the generating the task prioritizing recommendation comprises providing, the task prioritization recommendation;
However, Itani teaches:
wherein the generating the task prioritizing recommendation comprises providing, the task prioritization recommendation; (Itani [0009])
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 Itani into that of Robertson in order to have the generating the task prioritizing recommendation comprises providing, the task prioritization recommendation. Robertson [0118] – [0119] teaches if the difference is determined to not to be excludable/explainable, and then an engineer/developer may be notified to fix the workflow accordingly. One of ordinary skill can easily see that recommendations can be generated and presented to the user to aid them in correcting the workflow, such as taught by Itani [0009], would result in the obvious result of improve the efficiency of the optimization of the workflow, and is therefore rejected under the 35 USC 103.
As per claim 7, it is the device variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Robertson figure 1 and [0044])
As per claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Robertson [0045])
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson and Itani, and further in view of Gilderman et al (USPAT 10740286, hereinafter Gilderman).
As per claim 2, the combination of Robertson and Itani did not teach:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks and the set of target parameters are further analyzed by the at least one processor based on a manual input, and the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks comprises at least one from among: a first risk detail related to a value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first urgency detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first complexity detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first cost detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second risk detail related to a flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second urgency detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second complexity detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, and a second cost detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks.
However, Gilderman teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks and the set of target parameters are further analyzed by the at least one processor based on a manual input, and the first information related to the failure of the set of tasks comprises at least one from among: a first risk detail related to a value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first urgency detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first complexity detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a first cost detail related to the value associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second risk detail related to a flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second urgency detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, a second complexity detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks, and a second cost detail related to the flag associated with the failure of the set of tasks. (Gilderman col 9, line 65 – col 10, line 20.)
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 Gilderman into that of Robertson and Itani in order to have the generating the task prioritizing recommendation comprises providing, the task prioritization recommendation. Robertson [0104] – [0105] teaches using a message tree matching algorithm to determine the error or break between the baseline and target system. Although not explicitly defined, one of ordinary skill in the art can see that a variety of other data can be used to determine an error state, such as risk data for the failure, in order to optimize the accuracy of the task execution and perform any remedial actions on failures. Combining the references would lead to a predictable result of improved error detection and remediation and is therefore rejected under the 35 USC 103.
As per claim 8, it is the device variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 6, 9 – 12 and 15 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claims 3 – 6, they would be allowable if claim 3 is rolled up into claim 1 along with any intervening claims.
As per claims 9 – 12, they would be allowable if claim 9 is rolled up into claim 7 along with any intervening claims.
As per claims 14 – 18, they would be allowable if claim 14 is rolled up into claim 13 along with any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu (US 20190378071) teaches “determine a first plurality of priority scores for a plurality of work tasks; determine a first prioritized list of work tasks based on the first plurality of priority scores; detect a plurality of user selections from the first prioritized list of work tasks; determine a second plurality of priority scores using a regression analysis of the plurality of user selections from the first prioritized list of work tasks; and determine a second prioritized list of work tasks based on the second plurality of priority scores.”;
Huang (USPAT 9286106) teaches “A next task in a queue of tasks is considered for execution. In response to the next task having no dependent tasks, executing the next task. In response to the next task having dependent tasks, wherein the dependent tasks have been executed, executing the next task. In response to the next task having dependent tasks that have not completed execution, placing the next task into the set of waiting tasks. In response to placing the next task into the set of waiting tasks, determining if each dependent task of the next task is in the set of unfinished dependent tasks, placing each dependent task of the next task that is not in the set of unfinished dependent tasks into the set of unfinished dependent tasks, and establishing a link between the next task and each of its dependent tasks in the set of unfinished dependent tasks.”,
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