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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of the references failed to disclose the limitation: “wherein the request comprises at least the one example cloud architecture diagram”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Page discloses wherein the request comprises at least the one example cloud architecture diagram (the request comprises snapshops/graph/ diagrams, refer to par 0047, 0048, 0053, 0060, 0090, 0091); and Laprise, in analogous art, wherein the request comprises at least the one example cloud architecture diagram (refer to par 0037);
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al hereinafter Page (US 2024/0275674) in view of Laprise et al hereinafter Laprise (US 20240419907).
Referring to Claim 1. Page discloses a computing system, comprising: a cloud architect configured to: generate search results responsive to a request for a cloud architecture (presented correspondent template based on the tag, from user’s request, refer to par 0048, 0085), the search results indicating at least one example cloud architectural diagram (templates based on the tag, represented type of architecture that can be generated, refer to par 0047); generate a request to a large language model (LLM) for a recommended cloud architecture based on the user request and the search results (refer to par 0086, 0064, 0071-0073, 0086) wherein the request comprises at least the one example cloud architecture diagram (the request comprises snapshops/graph/ diagrams, refer to par 0047, 0048, 0053, 0060, 0090, 0091); and receive a response generated by the LLM indicating at least one recommended cloud architecture (Machine Model use to make recommendations, refer to par 0075, 0076, 0088).
Laprise, in analogous art, is introduced to expedite the prosecution by demonstrate it is well known in the art of the following limitation “generate request for cloud architecture, and generate a request to LLM for recommendation based on the generated request result (refer to par 0037, 0039); wherein the request comprises at least the one example cloud architecture diagram (refer to par 0037);”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Page with Laprise because Laprise’s teaching would allow the system of Page to provide more accurate representation in assist of real time network environment for configuration consideration.
Referring to Claim 2. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 1, Page discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to: provide the response for review in response to the user request (after receive the result from mapping the request to the template based on user’s request for request for a cloud architecture, refer to par 0030, and system validate the matching result., refer to par 0048, 0051, 0067); enable selection of a recommended cloud architectural diagram from the at least one recommended cloud architecture (selected and deploy components in a scenario, refer to par 0047, 0048, 0067-0068); and deploy a workload to a cloud using cloud resources determined based on the selected recommended cloud architectural diagram (deployed the service and solutions based on the selected diagram, refer to par 0049).
Referring to Claim 3. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 2, Page further discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to: enable editing of the selected recommended cloud architectural diagram (allow edit rules before released/published, refer to par 0059).
Referring to Claim 4. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 2, Page further discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to: enable a dialog based on the review (enable support management and validation/auditing, refer to par 0048, 0067); receive an updated response based on the dialog (validate to see if the rule aligned with the rules, and fine-tune/update the rule sets, refer to par 0059, 0070, 0071); and provide the updated response for review in response to the dialog (updates, refer to par 0059, 0070, 0071).
Referring to Claim 5. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 2, Page further discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to:
receive an edit request to edit the selected recommended cloud architectural diagram (refer to par 0060);
edit the selected recommended cloud architectural diagram in response to the edit request (refer to par 0060); and provide the edited selected recommended cloud architectural diagram for review in response to the edit request (output for review, refer to par 0058).
Referring to Claim 6. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 1, Page further discloses wherein to generate the search results, the cloud architect is configured to:
search one or more indexes associated with cloud architecture information stored in an architecture knowledge base (tag allow system to match the user’s request to the template that contains modules, which contains rules, refer to par 0005, 0025, 0028, 0030, 0048); and
obtain indexed information from the architecture knowledge base as the search results (obtained the selected template, refer to par 0028, 0030, 0048); and wherein a cloud architectural diagram included in the search results includes a plurality of nodes shown interconnected in a cloud-based network (templates represented type of architectures, refer to par 0047, and contains design elements, standards, user cases, snapshots, rules, provided related to support the selected template/architecture for the cloud base network, refer to par 0042, 0077 ).
Referring to Claim 7. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 3, Page further discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to:
provide an architecture specification based on the selected recommended cloud architectural diagram (code snippets structure data, refer to par 0075); receive a configured deployment template responsive to the architecture specification (generate the template, refer to par 0076); and deploy the workload based on the configured deployment template (and provide application and service for deployment, refer to par 0049).
Referring to Claim 8. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 7, Page discloses wherein the LLM is multi-modal and configured to generate the at least one recommended cloud architecture and the configured deployment template (large language model use to make recommendation, refer to par 0071, 0075).
Referring to Claim 9. Page with Laprise disclosed the computing system of claim 7, Page discloses wherein the cloud architect is further configured to: receive as input a cloud architectural diagram from a user device from which the user request is received (receive a request, refer to par 0085); and provide the received cloud architectural diagram to the LLM (output the selected architecture, refer to par 0085).
Referring to Claims 10-20, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-9.
Conclusion
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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447