DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on February 3, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18, and 20-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-25 have been added.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The objections to Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims or cancellation of the claim.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, lines 4, 5, and 7-8, recite “at least one of the dependency packages.” It should read -- at least one of the plurality of dependency packages --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0082573 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of US 10,303,465 (hereinafter “Potter”), US 2009/0310544 (hereinafter “Jain”), US 2024/0330272 (hereinafter “Achenbach”), US 2023/0162179 (hereinafter “Deng”), and US 2017/0364354 (hereinafter “Masis”).
As per Claim 1, Chen discloses:
A computing platform comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 6: 604);
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (paragraph [0058], “Communications fabric 602 can be implemented with any architecture designed for passing data and/or control information between processors […]”);
and memory storing computer-readable instructions (paragraph [0059], “Memory 606 and persistent storage 608 are computer readable storage media.”) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
receive, from a user device, a request to build an application (Figure 2: 202; paragraph [0032], “In this embodiment, composite application generator 110 generates a composite application based, at least in part on, the received user request (emphasis added).”);
execute, by the first node, the request to build the application, wherein executing the request to build the application comprises building the application (Figure 1: 108, 110; Figure 2: 204; paragraph [0032], “In this embodiment, composite application generator 110 generates a composite application based, at least in part on, the received user request (emphasis added).”); and
automatically publish the application to an enterprise server for access by the user device (paragraph [0034], “In this embodiment, composite application generator 110 delivers the generated composite application to the end user by publishing the generated composite application on a server accessible by the user (emphasis added).”).
Chen also discloses “based on the request to build the application” (paragraph [0032], “In this embodiment, composite application generator 110 generates a composite application based, at least in part on, the received user request (emphasis added).”) and “to build the application” (see previous citation), but does not explicitly disclose:
access, at a first node and based on the request to build the application, a first package corresponding to the application;
identify dependency information in the first package, wherein the dependency information indicates a plurality of dependency packages the first node requires to build the application;
identify a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages;
indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.
However, Potter discloses:
access, at a first node, a first package corresponding to the application (abstract, “A client computing device transmits an identifier for a target software package to a first server computing device including a public data store comprising a first plurality of software packages. The first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package in the first plurality of software packages and transmits identifiers for the dependent software packages to the client computing device (emphasis added).”);
identify dependency information in the first package, wherein the dependency information indicates a plurality of dependency packages the first node requires (col. 2 lines 58-67 to col. 3 lines 1-3, “A client computing device executing a dependency application transmits a first identifier for a target software package to a first server computing device executing a public software repository application […] Responsive to receiving the first identifier for the target software package, the first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package by executing a search over the public data store (emphasis added).”);
identify a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages (Figure 1: 110, 112, 138, 140; col 2. lines 64-67 to col. 3 lines 1-3, “The first server computing device includes a public data store comprising a first plurality of software packages. Responsive to receiving the first identifier for the target software package, the first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package by executing a search over the public data store (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 29-35, “At 414, responsive to receiving the dependent software package from the first server computing device, the client computing device transmits the dependent software package to the second server computing device, wherein the second server computing device stores the dependent software package in the private data store (emphasis added).”);
indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application (col. 2 lines 58-67 to col. 3 lines 1-3, “A client computing device executing a dependency application transmits a first identifier for a target software package to a first server computing device executing a public software repository application […] Responsive to receiving the first identifier for the target software package, the first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package by executing a search over the public data store (emphasis added).”).
Chen is within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention regarding generating software applications. Potter is also within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention regarding identifying dependency packages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Potter into the teaching of Chen to include “access, at a first node and based on the request to build the application, a first package corresponding to the application; identify dependency information in the first package, wherein the dependency information indicates a plurality of dependency packages the first node requires to build the application; indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify dependency information of a target application, based on a received user request to build an application, to ensure a software package that is required by another software package in order to function is installed (Potter, col. 5 lines 26-28).
The combination of Chen and Potter discloses “based on information in the request to build the application” and “indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes;
determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.
However, Jain discloses:
wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes (paragraph [0033], “Therefore, the node is associated with the first parent node and a set of child nodes.”).
determine that the first node is the parent node based on [network level information] (paragraph [0033], “The node determines a first parent node based on the network level information.”).
Jain is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of nodes in a hierarchical structure to transmit data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jain into the combined teachings of Chen and Potter to include “wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes; determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a hierarchical structure among nodes as a way to reduce complexity by logically organizing components, such as dependencies for an application, and to increase throughput (Jain, paragraphs [0010 & 0033]).
The combination of Chen, Potter, and Jain discloses “identify a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages,” but does not explicitly disclose:
identify, using a smart contract that corresponds to the dependency information, a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages;
establish a connection between the first node and the plurality of nodes;
send one or more commands to the plurality of nodes that, when received by the plurality of nodes, direct the plurality of nodes to send virtual copies of the plurality of dependency packages to the first node;
receive, by the first node.
However, Achenbach discloses:
identify, using a smart contract (paragraph [0026], “Further, each of the nodes 200 can include smart contracts 206a-206n (or “smart contract protocols”) that are present at every node 200.”) that corresponds to the [reconfiguration information], a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of [reconfiguration information] (paragraph [0024], “[...] the smart contract data 136 can include criteria for approving a reconfiguration request, criteria for triggering a reconfiguration action, criteria for updating a status of a pending reconfiguration request, etc., where the reconfiguration action is generally an operation that reconfigures the underlying blockchain (e.g. cryptographic key-exchange, pruning, software upgrade, adding/removing nodes, etc.) and a reconfiguration status generally specifies whether the reconfiguration action has successfully completed or not and may specify a reason for a failure, if applicable) (emphasis added).”);
establish a connection between the first node and the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0013], “Replica nodes 113 can be interconnected by a communication network for communication with every other node in the blockchain network.”);
send one or more commands to the plurality of nodes that, when received by the plurality of nodes, direct the plurality of nodes to send [reconfiguration information] to the first node (paragraph [0045], “In various embodiments, the blockchain execution client 108 dispatches a request to blockchain nodes 113a-113n to record the reconfiguration actions that have been invoked in their replicated storage mediums 110a-110n (e.g., reserved memory page of a data store) and to update its current status when the state changes for a progress of the reconfiguration action (e.g., in-progress/completed/failed). Therefore, the status of the reconfiguration action is available for other nodes of the blockchain service 112 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0047], “In various embodiments, one of the replica nodes 113a is selected to aggregate all of the status replies and return the aggregated status reply to the infrastructure management contract 109a or records them in a replicated storage medium that is accessible to the infrastructure management contract 109a (emphasis added).”);
receive, by the first node (abstract, “One such method comprises receiving, by at least one blockchain node from a client device, a reconfiguration request for changing infrastructure of a blockchain service by performing a reconfiguration action (emphasis added).”).
Achenbach is within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention regarding the generation of smart contracts and managing nodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Achenbach into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, and Jain to include “identify, using a smart contract that corresponds to the dependency information, a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages; establish a connection between the first node and the plurality of nodes; send one or more commands to the plurality of nodes that, when received by the plurality of nodes, direct the plurality of nodes to send the plurality of dependency packages to the first node; receive, by the first node.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a “permanent and tamper resistant record of transactions” (Achenbach, paragraph [0001]) by using a smart contract to manage the state of a digital ledger through transactions submitted by nodes (Achenbach, paragraph [0027]).
The combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, and Achenbach discloses “the plurality of dependency packages” and “receive, by the first node,” but does not explicitly disclose:
send virtual copies of the plurality of dependency packages to the first node;
receive, by the first node, the virtual copies of the plurality of dependency packages.
However, Deng discloses:
send virtual copies of [assets] to the first node (paragraph [0073], “So, in some examples, the instructions 106 may generate (e.g., via a smart contract) one or more copies of a virtual asset (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0079], “So, in some examples, the instructions 106 may facilitate an exhibition of the virtual asset (e.g., via a loan) that may be for a particular location (e.g., an internet website, any and all metaverse location(s), etc.) for a specified period of time (e.g., a number of days). It should be appreciated that, in some examples, the instructions 106 may facilitate transfer of the virtual asset in parts (or pieces) [send virtual copies of assets], such that the virtual asset may be “assembled” by a recipient upon delivery (emphasis added).”);
the virtual copies of [assets] (paragraph [0073], “So, in some examples, the instructions 106 may generate (e.g., via a smart contract) one or more copies of a virtual asset (emphasis added).”).
Deng is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the generation of virtual assets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deng into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, and Achenbach to include “send virtual copies of the plurality of dependency packages to the first node; receive, by the first node, the virtual copies of the plurality of dependency packages.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to send/receive virtual copies of dependency packages since virtual assets may offer reduced resource consumption (Deng, paragraph [0002]).
Chen discloses “automatically publish the application to an enterprise server for access by the user device,” but the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, and Deng does not explicitly disclose:
detect that the application was successfully built; and
based on detecting that the application was successfully built, automatically publish the application to an enterprise server for access by the user device.
However, Masis discloses:
detect that the application was successfully built (paragraph [0033], “For example, the build tool 120 transmit a notification to computing device 102n indicating that the software application was successfully built or unsuccessfully built (emphasis added).”); and
based on detecting that the application was successfully built (paragraph [0033], “For example, the build tool 120 transmit a notification to computing device 102n indicating that the software application was successfully built or unsuccessfully built (emphasis added).”).
Masis is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding building software projects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Masis into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, and Deng to include “detect that the application was successfully built; and based on detecting that the application was successfully built.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify that the application has been successfully built before publishing it to the server to ensure the application is functional for the end user.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, and Deng does not explicitly disclose:
send, to the user device, a notification indicating that the application was successfully built and one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification, wherein sending the one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification causes the user device to display the notification.
However, Masis discloses:
send, to the user device, a notification indicating that the application was successfully built and one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification, wherein sending the one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification causes the user device to display the notification (paragraph [0033], “For example, the build tool 120 transmit a notification to computing device 102n indicating that the software application was successfully built or unsuccessfully built (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0017], “In some examples, the computing devices 102a-e can each include a processor, a bus, a memory, user interface components, and other components (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0019], “The user interface components 110 can include, or facilitate connection to, one or more user interface devices. Examples of a user interface device can include a display device […] (emphasis added)”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Masis discloses both transmitting a notification indicating that the software application was successfully built and that a computing device includes user interface components that include a display device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the computing device would send one or more commands to direct the display device to display the notification.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Masis into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, and Deng to include “send, to the user device, a notification indicating that the application was successfully built and one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification, wherein sending the one or more commands directing the user device to display the notification causes the user device to display the notification.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify that the application has been successfully built before publishing it to the server to ensure the application is functional for the end user.
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Jain, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
generate the smart contract based on relationships between the first package at the first node and the dependency packages at the plurality of nodes.
However, Achenbach discloses:
generate the smart contract based on relationships (paragraph [0021], “Hence, the blockchain service 112 is deployed on the plurality of blockchain processing devices or nodes 113 that collectively implement one or more smart contract programs of the blockchain service that are contained in blocks of the blockchain. Accordingly, in various embodiments, the blockchain service 112 can comprise the blockchain execution client 108 that handles and dispatches the incoming blockchain requests, such as those related to requesting data, executing functions, returning a response, or transmitting data, and places transactions on the blockchain via remote procedure calls (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Achenbach into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Deng, and Masis to include “generate the smart contract based on relationships.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a “permanent and tamper resistant record of transactions” (Achenbach, paragraph [0001]) by using a smart contract to manage the state of a digital ledger through transactions submitted by nodes (Achenbach, paragraph [0027]).
However, Potter discloses:
based on relationships between the first package at the first node and the dependency packages at the plurality of nodes (col. 2 lines 58-67 to col. 3 lines 1-3, “A client computing device executing a dependency application transmits a first identifier for a target software package to a first server computing device executing a public software repository application […] Responsive to receiving the first identifier for the target software package, the first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package by executing a search over the public data store (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 29-35, “At 414, responsive to receiving the dependent software package from the first server computing device, the client computing device transmits the dependent software package to the second server computing device, wherein the second server computing device stores the dependent software package in the private data store (emphasis added).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Potter into the combined teaching of Chen, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “based on relationships between the first package at the first node and the dependency packages at the plurality of nodes.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify dependency information of a target application, based on a received user request to build an application, to ensure a software package that is required by another software package in order to function is installed (Potter, col. 5 lines 26-28).
Claims 13 and 14 are method claims corresponding to computing platform Claims 1 and 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejections of those claims.
Claim 20 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to computing platform Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,382,266 (hereinafter “Balakrishnan”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Chen discloses “a request,” but the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway.
However, Balakrishnan discloses:
wherein the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway (col. 40 lines 8-13, “The virtual circuit management 408E platform service of orchestration engine 407 receives, from API gateway 403, virtual circuit configuration requests to virtual circuit endpoint 406E and executes corresponding workflows to invoke cloud exchange API services 409 to satisfy the virtual circuit configuration requests (emphasis added).”).
Balakrishnan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding scalable computing resources accessible via a network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Balakrishnan into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “wherein the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to centralize user requests through an API gateway for security and authentication purposes and reducing network load.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 11,863,586 (hereinafter “Duan”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes.
However, Duan discloses:
detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes (abstract, “An indication that a client device has made a request to a remote server for a package is received […] In an example implementation, the data appliance makes a determination of whether the request for the package is associated with a nonexisting package.”; col. 13 lines 46-49, “If any required packages are missing (i.e., those upon which the package to be installed is dependent), the package manager will identify and retrieve/install them as well (emphasis added).”).
Duan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the detection of software packages based on a user request.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Duan into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify missing dependency packages to ensure the target application has its required dependencies installed to function correctly.
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to computing platform Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 8-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 2015/0188758 (hereinafter “Amidei”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis discloses a “parent node” and “child node,” but does not explicitly disclose:
demote the first node to a child node;
promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the parent node; and
dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting.
However, Amidei discloses:
demote the first node to a [leaf node] (paragraph [0026], “If demand is high, a leaf node may be promoted to serve as an additional local distribution node, then demoted if demand subsides (emphasis added).”);
promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the [additional local distribution node] (Figure 6: 630; paragraph [0026], “If demand is high, a leaf node may be promoted to serve as an additional local distribution node, then demoted if demand subsides (emphasis added).”); and
dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting (Figure 9: 900; paragraph [0047], “the content distribution system can functionally reconfigure itself to create a second local distribution node to service the population of leaf nodes. This is done through recognition of a high activity level at the original local distribution node and promotion of a leaf node to the role of a second local distribution node (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0053], “The promoted node is demoted, so that it no longer acts as a local distribution node. The combination of operations at 940 includes the remapping of leaf nodes to the first local distribution node, so that content requests from those leaf nodes are now routed to the first local distribution node. Moreover, the cache contents of the demoted node are copied to the first local distribution node if not already present.”).
Amidei is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the promotion and demotion of nodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amidei into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “demote the first node to a child node; promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the parent node; and dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote, demote, and reconfigure relationships between nodes to improve performance by configuring node relationships to reflect a specific criterion, such as resource allocation.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the demoting is based on the first node not exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request.
However, Amidei discloses:
wherein the demoting is based on the first node not exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request (paragraph [0048], “At 610, the values of operational parameters at the first local distribution node are determined. These parameters may include the number of content requests that have been received in a recent time window, the amount of data requested in this time window, the latency between receiving a request and delivery of content, and/or the amount of cache space currently in use (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0053], “In an embodiment, these parameters may be the same as those considered with respect to the first local distribution node at 610. At 920, a determination is made as to whether the current or expected [processing] load on the promoted node is sufficiently low to motivate demotion of the promoted node […] The combination of operations at 940 includes the remapping of leaf nodes to the first local distribution node, so that content requests from those leaf nodes are now routed to the first local distribution node (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amidei into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “wherein the demoting is based on the first node not exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote, demote, and reconfigure relationships between nodes to improve performance by configuring node relationships to reflect a specific criterion, such as resource allocation.
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the promoting is based on the second node exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request.
However, Amidei discloses:
wherein the promoting is based on the second node exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request (paragraph [0048], “At 610, the values of operational parameters at the first local distribution node are determined. These parameters may include the number of content requests that have been received in a recent time window, the amount of data requested in this time window, the latency between receiving a request and delivery of content, and/or the amount of cache space currently in use (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0049], “At 620, a determination is made as to whether the current and/or expected processing load at the local distribution node is high, based on the operational parameter values such as those discussed above. If so, then a leaf node can be promoted at 630 to function as another local distribution node. (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amidei into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “wherein the promoting is based on the second node exceeding a computing resource threshold required to support a future request.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote, demote, and reconfigure relationships between nodes to improve performance by configuring node relationships to reflect a specific criterion, such as resource allocation.
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Deng, Masis, and Amidei does not explicitly disclose:
update the smart contract based on the dynamic reconfiguration of the relationships between the first node, the second node, and the remainder of the plurality of nodes.
However, Achenbach discloses:
update the smart contract based on the dynamic reconfiguration of the relationships between the first node, the second node, and the remainder of the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0013], “Each replica node 113 executes identical instructions (algorithms) that dictate how to update its shared ledger or blockchain with new transactions and how to determine whether those updates are valid (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0027], “In various examples, the smart contract 206 initializes and manages a state of the digital ledger 203 (e.g., 203a . . . 203n) through transactions submitted by the nodes 200, including reconfiguration requests submitted to an infrastructure management protocol or smart contract 109a via a DApp 179 (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Achenbach into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Deng, Masis, and Amidei to include “update the smart contract based on the dynamic reconfiguration of the relationships between the first node, the second node, and the remainder of the plurality of nodes.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a “permanent and tamper resistant record of transactions” (Achenbach, paragraph [0001]) by using a smart contract to manage the state of a digital ledger through transactions submitted by nodes (Achenbach, paragraph [0027]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Chen further discloses:
use the second node to execute a second request from the user device, wherein executing the second request comprises building a second application at the second node (Figure 1: 108, 110; Figure 2: 202, 204; paragraph [0032], “In this embodiment, composite application generator 110 generates a composite application based, at least in part on, the received user request (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0018], “In yet other embodiments, composite application generator 110 can be stored on any number [of] computing devices (emphasis added).”).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to computing platform Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Balakrishnan, Duan, and Amidei.
As per Claim 21, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis discloses a “parent node” and “child node,” but does not explicitly disclose:
the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway;
detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes;
demote the first node to a child node;
promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the parent node; and
dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting.
However, Balakrishnan discloses:
the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway (col. 40 lines 8-13, “The virtual circuit management 408E platform service of orchestration engine 407 receives, from API gateway 403, virtual circuit configuration requests to virtual circuit endpoint 406E and executes corresponding workflows to invoke cloud exchange API services 409 to satisfy the virtual circuit configuration requests (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Balakrishnan into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “the request is received by the computing platform through an application programming interface (API) gateway.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to centralize user requests through an API gateway for security and authentication purposes and reducing network load.
However, Duan discloses:
detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes (abstract, “An indication that a client device has made a request to a remote server for a package is received […] In an example implementation, the data appliance makes a determination of whether the request for the package is associated with a nonexisting package.”; col. 13 lines 46-49, “If any required packages are missing (i.e., those upon which the package to be installed is dependent), the package manager will identify and retrieve/install them as well (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Duan into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, and Balakrishnan to include “detect missing dependency packages at one or more of the plurality of nodes.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify missing dependency packages to ensure the target application has its required dependencies installed to function correctly.
However, Amidei discloses:
demote a first node to a [leaf node] (paragraph [0026], “If demand is high, a leaf node may be promoted to serve as an additional local distribution node, then demoted if demand subsides (emphasis added).”);
promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the [additional local distribution node] (Figure 6: 630; paragraph [0026], “If demand is high, a leaf node may be promoted to serve as an additional local distribution node, then demoted if demand subsides (emphasis added).”); and
dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting (Figure 9: 900; paragraph [0047], “the content distribution system can functionally reconfigure itself to create a second local distribution node to service the population of leaf nodes. This is done through recognition of a high activity level at the original local distribution node and promotion of a leaf node to the role of a second local distribution node (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0053], “The promoted node is demoted, so that it no longer acts as a local distribution node. The combination of operations at 940 includes the remapping of leaf nodes to the first local distribution node, so that content requests from those leaf nodes are now routed to the first local distribution node. Moreover, the cache contents of the demoted node are copied to the first local distribution node if not already present.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amidei into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, Balakrishnan, and Duan to include “demote the first node to a child node; promote a second node of the plurality of nodes to be the parent node; and dynamically reconfigure relationships between the first node, the second node, and a remainder of the plurality of nodes based on the demoting and promoting.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote, demote, and reconfigure relationships between nodes to improve performance by configuring node relationships to reflect a specific criterion, such as resource allocation.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0143305 (hereinafter “Mund”) and US 2010/0162263 (hereinafter “Kamalahasan”).
As per Claim 22, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Chen discloses “the request,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the request includes a user-interface package, a front-end package, a back-end package, and a queue package.
However, Mund discloses:
wherein the [application] includes a user-interface package, a front-end package, and a back-end package (paragraph [0111], “The back-end application has the following dependencies listed below […] CakePHP - Primary package [back-end package] […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0112], “The front-end application uses the following plugins and packages […] jQuery-ui Useful widgets [user-interface package, front-end package] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0107], “The use of the CakePHP™ and AngularJS™ frameworks aid the design of the functions in the central web application from a consistency perspective.”).
Mund is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of UI, front-end, and back-end packages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mund into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “wherein the request includes a user-interface package, a front-end package, and a back-end package.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include user-interface, front-end, and back-end packages to utilize back-end and front-end frameworks since frameworks “supply significant efficiencies and reduce testing time” and “tend to promote conventions that further improve consistency and efficiency” (Mund, paragraph [0086]).
However, Kamalahasan discloses:
queue package (paragraph [0037], “Message queue packages are imported 910.”).
Kamalahasan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of queue packages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kamalahasan into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, and Mund to include “queue package.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to import message queue packages since “load testing of software running on servers using message queues, in which requests from users are placed in a queue and later responded to, is desirable” (Kamalahasan, paragraphs [0004 & 0037]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2002/0100036 (hereinafter “Moshir”).
As per Claim 23, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
direct the parent node to delete at least one of the dependency packages, wherein directing the parent node to delete the at least one of the dependency packages is based on one or more of:
detecting that the application was successfully built; or
detecting that a pre-configured time to live associated with the at least one of the dependency packages expired.
However, Potter discloses:
dependency packages (abstract, “The first server computing device identifies dependent software packages of the target software package in the first plurality of software packages and transmits identifiers for the dependent software packages to the client computing device (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Potter into the teaching of Chen, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “dependency packages.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify dependency packages of a target application, based on a received user request to build an application, to ensure a software package that is required by another software package in order to function is installed (Potter, col. 5 lines 26-28).
However, Jain discloses:
parent node (paragraph [0033], “Therefore, the node is associated with the first parent node and a set of child nodes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jain into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “parent node.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a hierarchical structure among nodes as a way to reduce complexity by logically organizing components and to increase throughput (Jain, paragraphs [0010 & 0033]).
However, Moshir discloses:
direct the [node] to delete at least one of the [software packages] (paragraph [0110], “A separate task running in the update server 528 will check periodically for resources that have "outlived" their usefulness and recover the update host's storage resources by deleting the stored software package update from the cache 530 (emphasis added).”), wherein directing the [node] to delete the at least one of the [software packages] is based on one or more of:
detecting that the application was successfully built; or
detecting that a pre-configured time to live associated with the at least one of the [software packages] expired (paragraph [0110], “To prevent the update server 528 from filling up all its available memory with old software packages, one embodiment stores the number of times the package is accessed and the time of the latest access for the stored software package and estimates a "time to live" amount of time for that resource to stay in its cache. A separate task running in the update server 528 will check periodically for resources that have "outlived" their usefulness and recover the update host's storage resources by deleting the stored software package update from the cache 530 (emphasis added).”).
Moshir is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the deletion of expired packages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Moshir into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “direct the parent node to delete at least one of the dependency packages, wherein directing the parent node to delete the at least one of the dependency packages is based on one or more of: detecting that the application was successfully built, or detecting that a pre-configured time to live associated with the at least one of the dependency packages expired.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to effectively conserve and recover storage resources by deleting software packages that have outlived their usefulness (Moshir, paragraph [0110]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Amidei and US 2021/0176746 (hereinafter “Abedini”).
As per Claim 24, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
determine, by the first node, that at least one of the child nodes is insufficient for promotion to a parent node, wherein the first node makes the determination based on one or more of:
identifying a lack of communication between the first node and the at least one child node;
identifying that the at least one child node has incorrectly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages during previous requests; or
determining that a number of times the at least one child node correctly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages is less than a threshold value.
However, Amidei discloses:
determine, by the first node, that at least one of the [leaf nodes] is insufficient for promotion to a [local distribution node] (paragraph [0049], “At 620, a determination is made as to whether the current and/or expected processing load at the local distribution node is high, based on the operational parameter values such as those discussed above. If so, then a leaf node can be promoted at 630 to function as another local distribution node (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0080], “Computer program logic 1940 also includes a module 1958 for determination of the current and expected processing load at the local distribution node.”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Amidei discloses a module (first node) for determining the processing load at a local distribution node and promoting a leaf node if the processing load is high. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that if the current processing load is not high, then the leaf node is determined to be insufficient for promotion to a local distribution node.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Amidei into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis to include “determine, by the first node, that at least one of the [leaf nodes] is insufficient for promotion to a [local distribution node].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine whether certain nodes are sufficient for promotion/demotion to “improve the efficiency of a content delivery system” (Amidei, abstract).
However, Abedini discloses:
child nodes (paragraph [0068], “[…] the parent node is not permitted to communicate with its child nodes (e.g., a second IAB node 410, a UE 120) over the set of resources (emphasis added).”);
parent node (paragraph [0072], “In some aspects, a parent node may determine that a set of resources is not available for the parent node for communication with a child node of the parent node (emphasis added).);
wherein the first node makes the determination based on one or more of:
identifying a lack of communication between the first node and the at least one child node (paragraph [0072], “In some aspects, a parent node may determine that a set of resources is not available for the parent node for communication with a child node of the parent node. Here, the parent node may provide an availability indicator to the child node based at least in part this determination, and the availability indicator may indicate the set of resources as available for the child node. That is, a set of resources that is unavailable for the parent node for communication with the child node may be indicated to the child node as available for the child node (emphasis added).”);
identifying that the at least one child node has incorrectly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages during previous requests; or
determining that a number of times the at least one child node correctly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages is less than a threshold value.
Abedini is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding identifying communication between nodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Abedini into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, and Amidei to include “determine, by the first node, that at least one of the child nodes is insufficient for promotion to a parent node, wherein the first node makes the determination based on one or more of: identifying a lack of communication between the first node and the at least one child node, identifying that the at least one child node has incorrectly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages during previous requests, or determining that a number of times the at least one child node correctly transmitted virtual copies of dependency packages is less than a threshold value.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify a lack of communication between a parent and child node regarding a set of resources not available to the parent node and utilize an availability indicator in order to prevent actions by the child node that may result in “inefficient overall resource utilization” (Abedini, paragraphs [0071 & 0072]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, Amidei, and Abedini as applied to Claim 24 above, and further in view of US 2024/0248778 (hereinafter “Nagesh”).
As per Claim 25, the rejection of Claim 24 is incorporated [Examiner’s Remarks: Since Claim 24 stated the first node makes the determination based on one or more of the listed three limitations and the Examiner chose identifying a lack of communication between the first node and the at least one child node, the rejection of Claim 25 is optional due to the threshold relating back to one of the limitations not selected by the Examiner. However, in order to promote compact prosecution, the Examiner is including this rejection.]; and the combination of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, Amidei, and Abedini does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the threshold is based on central processing unit (CPU) utilization and available memory.
However, Nagesh discloses:
wherein the threshold is based on central processing unit (CPU) utilization and available memory (paragraph [0041], “For example, a health check 214 may invoke system calls to determine the current CPU, memory, and/or utilization on the node, and compare these determined values to threshold values to determine if the node is under unusually heavy load (emphasis added).”).
Nagesh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of CPU and memory utilization thresholds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nagesh into the combined teachings of Chen, Potter, Jain, Achenbach, Deng, Masis, Amidei, and Abedini to include “wherein the threshold is based on central processing unit (CPU) utilization and available memory.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize health checks that monitor CPU and memory utilization of nodes to “achieve a desired level of system availability and reliability” and run the health checks serially to reduce resource consumption (Nagesh, paragraphs [0016, 0040, & 0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 3, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
As an initial matter, this proposed combination of five references would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without the use of hindsight reasoning to view the references using the claims as a guide. In particular, these references address fundamentally different technical problems: Chen addresses micro-application composition for end users, Potter addresses software dependency management between public and private repositories, Achenbach addresses blockchain infrastructure governance through consensus protocols, Deng addresses NFT transactions and virtual asset management, and Masis addresses code segment associations for software builds. See e.g., Chen, ¶ [0001]; See also Potter, col. 2, lines 53-58; See also Achenbach ¶ [0009]; See also Deng, ¶ [0001]; See also Masis, Abstract. In view of these disparate technologies, the alleged combination would require impermissible hindsight reasoning, where the claims are used as a roadmap to combine systems that were designed to solve entirely different problems. Accordingly, the proposed combination of references is improper, and thus fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of claim 1.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Even assuming, without conceding, that this hypothetical combination is proper, the resulting combination still fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of amended claim 1. For example, claim 1, as amended, recites the features of (now cancelled) dependent claims 6 and 7. For example, claim 1, as amended, recites in part, "identify, using a smart contract that corresponds to the dependency information, a plurality of nodes that contain the plurality of dependency packages, wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes" and "determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application." The Office Action concedes that the five way combination of Chen, Potter, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis, fails to disclose these features, and instead adds US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0310544 (hereinafter "Jain") to create a hypothetical six way combination of references that allegedly teaches the features.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Jain describes that "the node is associated with the first parent node and a set of child nodes" and that "[t]he node determines a first parent node based on the network level information Jain, ¶ [0033]. Although Jain describes determining a parent node based on "network level information," Jain fails to describe "determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application," as is recited in claim 1. Thus, Jain fails to cure the deficiencies of Chen, Potter, Achenbach, Deng, and Masis with regard to these features.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the combination of references disclose “determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application” instead of the Jain reference on its own. An excerpt from the 103 rejection provided herein is provided below to highlight this point:
The combination of Chen and Potter discloses “based on information in the request to build the application” and “indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes;
determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.
However, Jain discloses:
wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes (paragraph [0033], “Therefore, the node is associated with the first parent node and a set of child nodes.”).
determine that the first node is the parent node based on [network level information] (paragraph [0033], “The node determines a first parent node based on the network level information.”).
Jain is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of nodes in a hierarchical structure to transmit data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jain into the combined teachings of Chen and Potter to include “wherein the first node is a parent node and the plurality of nodes are child nodes; determine that the first node is the parent node based on information in the request to build the application indicating the first package at the first node is a primary software component of the application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a hierarchical structure among nodes as a way to reduce complexity by logically organizing components, such as dependencies for an application, and to increase throughput (Jain, paragraphs [0010 & 0033].
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claims 21-25 have been added. Support for these claims may be found throughout the filed specification and figures. No new matter has been added. The cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of these claims. In particular, claim 21 includes the features of dependent claims 3, 5, and 8, and depends from claim 1. In view of the references alleged to teach these different features, the rejection of claim 21 would require a nine way combination of references that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without the benefit of hindsight reasoning.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 FEVEN H HURUY whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:45pm.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights