DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on 10/06/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2315387.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Amendment Non-Compliant
Claim 1 adds new limitation without proper markings such as underline for addition and cross-out for subtraction. Examiner is treating the subject matter “to obtain, from the application, an indicator of intent of the request, the indicator of intent indicating an impact of processing the request on a system state” as a new limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “impact of processing” in claims 1, 11, and 12 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “impact of processing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 9 and 10 recites the limitation "an impact of processing" in lines 4 and 5, respectively. However, Claims 1 previously already recited the “an impact of processing” line 8. It is not clear whether claims 9 and 10 recite a different impact of processing or refers back to the same one. If it refers back to the same impact then it needs to state –the impact--, if it is a different impact, it needs to be made clear.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 13-20 are rejected based on dependency issues.
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, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teepell et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0188483) in view of Rich, JR. et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0308652).
Regarding claim 1, Teepell teaches a computer-implemented method for managing requests in a server queue, the method comprising:
analyzing a request to be added to the server queue to determine a client wait time limit (see ¶[0007] “The monitored resource may be a queue of received requests and the level of usage may be the size of the queue. The resource critical threshold level may be approximately 90% of a processing rate of the monitored resource times an expected timeout length of a request.”); the client wait time limit indicating a time at which a client associated with the request will stop waiting for a response to the request (see ¶[0012] “The resource critical threshold level may be approximately 90% of a processing rate of the monitored resource times an expected timeout length of a request.”);
determining an application for processing the request (see ¶0012] “The monitored resource may be a queue of received requests and the status monitor is configured to measure the size of the queue. The resource critical threshold level may be approximately 90% of a processing rate of the monitored resource times an expected timeout length of a request.”);
analyzing the application to obtain, from the application, an indicator of intent of the request (see ¶[0053] “Type field 320 may indicate a type of the operation. If the operation is processing a Diameter request, type field 320 may indicate the type of request for the application. Data structure 300 may include more than one entry 340 for a type of request. Data structure 300, however, may include only one entry 340 for each unique combination of application field 310 and type field 320. If the operation is not processing a request, type field 320 may indicate information such as the frequency of the operation.”);
the indicator of intent indicating an impact of processing the request on a system state (see ¶[0008] “the step of determining an overload usage state includes: waiting an escalation interval; determining whether a monitored resource is in an overloaded state; and escalating the overload usage state if the monitored resource is in an overloaded state. The step of determining whether a monitored resource is in an overloaded state may include: determining that the monitored resource is in an overloaded state if the level of usage exceeds a first threshold; and determining that the monitored resource is not in an overloaded state if the level of usage falls below a second threshold, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are less than the resource critical threshold.”); and
Teepell does not expressly disclose however, Rich JR teaches analyzing timeout metadata included in a request (see ¶[0064] “The message manager 700 determines from metadata or data of the message whether the message may be expired (901)”), determining a queue action for the request based at least in part on a comparison of the client wait time limit with a current time and the indicator of intent of the request (see ¶ [0065] “If the current time is not later than the expiration time, the message manager 700 does not delete the message. If the current time is later than the expiration time, the message manager 700 deletes the message from the message store 13S (1002)”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Regarding claim 2, Teepell does not expressly disclose, however Rich JR teaches
calculating, based on the timeout metadata, the client wait time limit (see ¶0062] “If it is not appropriate to manage messages at the current time, the message manager 700 waits for a period of time (802), before returning to determine again whether it is appropriate to manage messages (801). In one alternative embodiment, the message manager waits until some condition occurs before making the determination again, for example, an event indication that a new message has been added or a message has been modified by a message processing application.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Regarding claim 3, Teepell teaches wherein the request is received at the server queue from a client, and wherein the client wait time limit describes an absolute time at which the client will stop waiting for the request (see ¶[0012] “The resource critical threshold level may be approximately 90% of a processing rate of the monitored resource times an expected timeout length of a request.”).
Regarding claim 6, Teepell teaches wherein the indicator of intent of the request indicates whether the request is safe to discard (see ¶[0048] “If the overload rejection state is equal to or greater than the overload rejection level, load manager 235 may shed the operation.”).
Regarding claim 10, Teepell does not expressly disclose, however Rich JR teaches
wherein determining the queue action for the request comprises: determining the queue action is to remove the request from the server queue in response to determining that the client wait time has a third predetermined value (see ¶[0065] “If the current time is later than the expiration time, the message manager 700 deletes the message from the message store 13S (1002).”) and an impact of processing the request on the system state has a fourth predetermined value (see ¶[0065] “Metadata or data of the message contains an expiration time for the message, such as in the form of a key-value pair stored with the message or in association with the message. In some implementations this expiration value is included with the message sent by the sender 11, or may be determined from a timestamp value of when the message is received by the receiver and from a set of rules; or by other means or a combination” see ¶[0082] “Which response generator 1348-1349 is appropriate for a given request is determined based on the application of rules 1346 stored in an accessible storage 1345 to data or metadata of the request, or further factors such as system loading or performance”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Regarding claim 11, is an independent product claim, corresponding to method claim 1 above, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Teepell teaches a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions (see ¶[0079]).
Regarding claim 12, is an independent system claim, corresponding to method claim 1 above, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Teepell teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media collectively storing program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform a method for managing requests in a server queue (see ¶[0049])
Regarding claim 13, is a dependent system claim corresponding to method claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Teepell does not expressly disclose, however, Rich JR teaches wherein determining the queue action involves comparing the client wait time limit to a current time (see ¶0063] “The message manager 700 determines whether the message is expired by comparing the expiration time value of the message with the current time (1001).”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Regarding claim 17, Teepell teaches wherein the indicator of intent of the request indicates whether the request is safe to discard (see ¶[0048] “If the overload rejection state is equal to or greater than the overload rejection level, load manager 235 may shed the operation.”).
Teepell does not expressly disclose, however Rich JR teaches wherein the impact of processing the request on the system state indicates whether processing the request modifies data of the system, adds data to the system, removes data from the system, or reads data of the system (see ¶[0067] “In a number of implementations, metadata or data of the present message includes an identifier of the existing message, and information to update, replace, or augment at least a portion of the information of the existing message.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Regarding claim 18, Teepell teaches wherein the queue action for the request comprises removing the request from the server queue (see ¶[0054] “Overload rejection level field 330 may indicate a level at which load manager 235 should shed an operation. An entry 340 for overload rejection level field 330 may indicate an overload usage state. In various exemplary embodiments, possible entries in overload rejection level field 330 may include 2: minor, 3: major, 4: critical, and 5: resource critical. Overload usage state 1: normal, however, may not be used because there may be no need to shed entries when the monitored resource is not overloaded. An entry 340 for an overload rejection level field 330 may also indicate that the operation should never be shed. In various exemplary embodiments, only an entry 340 for emergency requests may indicate that the operation should never be shed.”).
Regarding claim 21, Teepell does not expressly disclose, however Rich JR teaches wherein the impact of processing the request on the system state indicates whether processing the request modifies data of the system, adds data to the system, removes data from the system, or reads data of the system (see ¶[0067] “In a number of implementations, metadata or data of the present message includes an identifier of the existing message, and information to update, replace, or augment at least a portion of the information of the existing message.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Rich JR to manage messages in order to update, replace, or augment messages based on determination made from metadata (see ¶[0067] of Rich JR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teepell et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0188483) in view of Rich, JR. et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0308652), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Segal et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0267155).
Regarding claim 5, Teepell does not expressly disclose, however, Segal teaches wherein analyzing the application to obtain the indicator of intent comprises analyzing an application configuration file of the application (see ¶ 0048] “The extracting, analyzing and learning steps can be performed using various techniques such as, but not limited to: static analysis of the code and configuration files, by observing application behavior in real time through code instrumentation, by analyzing application log files, or any other technique which may help to learn about the normal behavior of the application, its users and data.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell by adapting Segal to learn the behavior of the application (see ¶[0048] of Segal).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teepell et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0188483) in view of Rich, JR. et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0308652) as applied to claim 1, and 12 above, further in view of Williams (U.S. PG PUB 2008/0317058).
Regarding claim 7, Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, however, Williams teaches wherein the queue action for the request comprises changing a position of the request in the server queue (see ¶ [0074] “repositioning a client within a queue (moving or modifying a record 122 within the queue table 120 or changing a records priority number 124 (or designated time 102 of FIG. 4)); or removing a client from a queue (e.g. deleting a record 122 (or a record 96 of FIG. 4) or tagging the record in a manner to indicate that the client 11 no longer requires service).”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell and Rich JR by adapting Williams to obtain and control queue data to effect handling of clients waiting to be connected to a resource (see ¶[0001] of Williams).
Regarding claim 8, Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, however, Williams teaches wherein determining the queue action for the request comprises: determining the queue action is to maintain a position of the request in the server queue in response to determining that the client wait time limit equals a first predetermined value (see ¶[0054] “As examples, the secondary queuing system 19 may maintain a client's position in queue for a resource 20 within the appropriate resource group 22a-22e while: i) the client 11 takes advantage of services provided by a secondary resource 13 such as an information on-demand system; or ii) the client 11 disconnects and waits for a return call when an appropriate resource is available.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell and Rich JR by adapting Williams to obtain and control queue data to effect handling of clients waiting to be connected to a resource (see ¶[0001] of Williams).
Regarding claim 9, Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, however, Williams teaches wherein determining the queue action for the request comprises: determining the queue action is to maintain a position of the request in the server queue in response to determining that an impact of processing the request on the system state equals a second predetermined value (see ¶0055] “In the example wherein the secondary queuing system 19 maintains the client's position in queue while the client 11 takes advantage of a secondary resource 13, the secondary queue may, when the client 11 has completed his/her session with the secondary resource 13 and a primary resource 20 within the appropriate resource group 22a-22e is available, generate a priority connection to such available resource.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, by adapting Williams to obtain and control queue data to effect handling of clients waiting to be connected to a resource (see ¶[0001] of Williams).
Regarding claim 14, Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, however, Williams teaches teaches wherein the timeout metadata of the request comprises a duration of time the request has been in the server queue (see ¶[0087] “The queuing data 23 may be in a table form showing, for each of a plurality of queued clients, the queue position 50, the client ID 52, the client's expected wait time 54 (e.g. duration), and/or the clients expected connection time 56.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, by adapting Williams to obtain and control queue data to effect handling of clients waiting to be connected to a resource (see ¶[0001] of Williams).
Regarding claim 19, is a dependent system claim corresponding to method claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, is a dependent system claim corresponding to method claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teepell et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0188483) in view of Rich, JR. et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0308652) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Brazier (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0054684).
Regarding claim 16, Teepell and Rich JR do not disclose, however, Brazier teaches wherein analyzing the application to obtain the indicator of intent includes making a callback to the application (see ¶[0018] “sending, using the interaction manager, at least a first plurality of data elements pertaining to the callback request to an intent analysis engine software module operating on a network-attached server; (e) receiving, from the intent analysis engine, a second plurality of data elements pertaining to the callback request, the second plurality of data elements being determined based at least on an analysis of the intent of the callback request;”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Teepell and Rich JR by adapting Brazier to determine intent of an application for managing the needs of the caller (see ¶[0016] of Brazier).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim rejections have been withdrawn considering amendments filed.
101 rejections have been withdrawn considering amendments filed.
Applicant argues singularly that Teepell do not disclose the amended claim limitations, however, examiner has cited additionally, Rich JR as teaching those limitations.
Applicant should take note that the claim amendments were filed improperly without the appropriate underlines for newly added subject matter. Examiner examined the case as a one-time courtesy, however, examiner may in the future file a notice of non-compliance, if such improper filings continue.
In terms of priority, applicant should also take note that they have not yet filed a certified copy of the 2315387.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miedema (U.S. Patent 10,891,176) teaches a microservice architecture having a plurality of services and a messaging layer for communication therebetween, systems and methods include receiving messages from a first service to a second service in the messaging layer; queuing responses from the messages; and utilizing one or more bulk messaging techniques to send the responses back to the first service from the second service. The systems and methods can also include maintaining statistics related to the one or more bulk messaging techniques; and automatically determining which of the one or more bulk messaging techniques based on the statistics, to minimize latency of the messaging layer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights