CTNF 18/521,101 CTNF 87343 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/521,101 filed on 11/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent claims. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANNA et al. (DE 102018006894 A1, hereinafter “KHANNA”) in view of MARKS et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2024/0134686 A1, hereinafter “MARKS”) . Regarding claim 1, KHANNA teaches a system for dynamic task management across a network, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device containing instructions (KHANNA page 4 first paragraph); and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (KHANNA page 4 first paragraph), wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to: receive a task to be completed by one or more end-point devices on a network (KHANNA page 10 first paragraph, i.e., “receiving a request from a data processing carriage to speed up the execution of a job (e.g., a group of tasks),”), wherein the task comprises metadata relating to the task (KHANNA page 10 first paragraph, i.e., “Generate metadata that shows the tasks within the job, an acceleration type associated with each task”); determine one or more task actions that are part of the task based on the metadata relating to the task, wherein each of the one or more task actions are completed by one of the one or more end-point devices on the network (KHANNA page 10 first paragraph, i.e., “Receiving availability data (e.g., data indicating which of the tasks the micro-orchestrator is sledging for acceleration on the associated accelerator 1240 .1242 accepted) by the micro-orchestrators 1250 . 1252 and assigning the tasks to the micro-orchestrators 1250 . 1252 (e.g. to the corresponding accelerator carriages 1240 . 1242 ) as a function of the availability data.”). KHANNA fails to explicitly teach receive a task action input, wherein the task action input indicates a change to at least one of the one or more task actions or indicates an additional task action to be added to the one or more task actions; update the one or more task actions based on the task action input. However, in the same field of endeavor, MARKS teaches receive a task action input, wherein the task action input indicates a change to at least one of the one or more task actions or indicates an additional task action to be added to the one or more task actions (MARKS ¶0133); update the one or more task actions based on the task action input (MARKS ¶0134). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KHANNA by incorporating the teachings of MARKS. The motivation would be for determining variants of an automatable task based on user input using task mining (MARKS Abstract). KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches determine a task action order for each of the one or more task actions, wherein the task action order indicates one or more of the task actions that must be completed before a given task action order can be started (KHANNA page 14 last paragraph, i.e., “The job analyzer 1532 is at the illustrative Embodiment configured to perform tasks in an order in response to receiving a job request from a data processing sled (e.g., the data processing sled 1230 ) to identify. This allows the job analyzer 1532 analyze a description of the job to identify the tasks that make up the job”); and assign at least one of the one or more task actions to at least one of the one or more end-point devices on the network based on the task action order (KHANNA page 15 first paragraph, i.e., “the task assigner may follow a predetermined strategy, such as assigning tasks as a function of the best suitability of an accelerator carriage 1240”). As to claim 2, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to cause a user interface to be rendered to at least one of the one or more end-point devices on the network (MARKS ¶0137, i.e., “The variants of the automatable task and/or the analytical measures may be output by, for example, displaying the variants of the automatable task and/or the analytical measures on a display device of a computer system or by storing the variants of the automatable task and/or the analytical measures on a memory or storage of a computer system”), wherein the user interface comprises each of the task actions assigned to the given end-point device (MARKS ¶0140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KHANNA by incorporating the teachings of MARKS. The motivation would be for determining variants of an automatable task based on user input using task mining (MARKS Abstract). As to claim 3, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the user interface rendered to at least one of the one or more end-point devices comprises a plurality of assigned task actions assigned to the given end-point device (MARKS ¶0140, i.e., “In one exemplary application of embodiments described herein, a finance team of a corporation may be responsible for processing an invoice. The finance team must perform a sequence of steps to complete invoice processing.”), wherein the plurality of assigned task actions comprises at least one of the one or more task actions associated with the task and at least one additional task action associated with one or more additional tasks (MARKS ¶0140, i.e., “The finance team can record the invoice processing task using task capture and the recording can be further processed to generate task flow data. The task flow data may be processed by image processing and using a ML model to determine variants of the invoice processing task”). As to claim 4, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to: receive an additional task to be completed by the one or more end-point devices on the network (MARKS ¶0140); and determine one or more additional task actions based on the one or more task actions associated with the task (MARKS ¶0140). As to claim 5, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to cause a user interface to be rendered to at least one of the one or more end-point devices on the network (MARKS ¶0137), wherein the user interface comprises at least one of the one or more task actions and at least one of the one or more additional task actions assigned to the given end-point device (MARKS ¶0140). As to claim 7, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to assign a primary end-point device of the one or more end-point devices on the network for the task, wherein the primary end-point device is capable of providing a task action input (MARKS ¶0133, i.e., “the task flow data is analyzed to identify unique screenshots captured during the performance of the automatable task by the one or more users. In path and action detection, paths between the unique screenshots taken by the one or more users while the one or more users interacts with the user interface for the performance of the automatable task and actions by the one or more users during the performance of the automatable task are determined”). As to claim 9, KHANNA as modified by MARKS also teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to determine an assignment for one of the one or more end-point devices based upon one of the one or more task actions completed by the given end-point device (KHANNA page 14 second paragraph, i.e., “the Orchestrator server 1220 from a data processing sled (e.g., the data processing sled 1230 ) to indicate a set of tasks associated with all or part of a workload (e.g., a job). It also includes the environment 1500 in the illustrative embodiment, job metadata 1504 which can be any data sent by the Orchestrator server 1220 to identify the characteristics of each order according to one of the order requirements”, and page 9 second to last paragraph, i.e., “The Orchestrator server 1220 can support a cloud operating environment such as OpenStack and the Orchestrator server 1220 managed nodes may include one or more applications or processes (i.e., workloads), such as in virtual machines or containers, on behalf of a user of the client device 1214 To run)”). Claim 10 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to the combination of claims 2 and 3 and is similarly rejected. Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to the combination of claims 4 and 5 and is similarly rejected. Claim 14 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to the combination of claims 2 and 3 and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to the combination of claims 4 and 5 and is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANNA in view of MARKS, and further in view of Zaitsev et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2023/0086068 A1, hereinafter “Zaitsev”) . As to claim 6, KHANNA as modified by MARKS teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the assignment of the at least one of the one or more task actions comprises determining a task permission for each of the at least one of the one or more task actions. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zaitsev teaches the assignment of the at least one of the one or more task actions comprises determining a task permission for each of the at least one of the one or more task actions (Zaitsev ¶0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KHANNA and MARKS by incorporating the teachings of Zaitsev. The motivation would be for determining whether the permissions identifier enables performing the one or more actions on behalf of the requesting entity, in response to determining that the permissions identifier enables performing the one or more actions on behalf of the requesting entity, performing the one or more actions, and providing to the requesting entity one or more results for the one or more actions (Zaitsev Abstract). Claim 13 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANNA in view of MARKS, and further in view of Harper et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2016/0004565 A1, hereinafter “Harper”) . As to claim 8, KHANNA as modified by MARKS teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to cause a notification to be transmitted to at least one of the one or more end-point devices in an instance in which one of the one or more task actions is assigned and in an instance in which the one of the one or more task actions is completed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harper teaches the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to cause a notification to be transmitted to at least one of the one or more end-point devices in an instance in which one of the one or more task actions is assigned and in an instance in which the one of the one or more task actions is completed (Harper ¶0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KHANNA and MARKS by incorporating the teachings of Harper. The motivation would be for generating notification to perform a task and providing update statuses of tasks (Harper ¶0037). Claims 15 and 20 recite the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 8 and are similarly rejected . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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 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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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. /ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 9 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 10 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/521,101 Page 11 Art Unit: 2168