DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “the first memory.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or first computing processor devices" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “one or more first computing processor devices.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “the second memory.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “at least one first instance of a UMB adapter” and “at least one second instance of a UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to at least one first instance of a UMB adapter or at least one second instance of a UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “at least one first instance of a UMB adapter” and “at least one second instance of a UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to at least one first instance of a UMB adapter or at least one second instance of a UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" at the very end of line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “at least one first instance of a UMB adapter” and “at least one second instance of a UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to at least one first instance of a UMB adapter or at least one second instance of a UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “at least one first instance of a UMB adapter” and “at least one second instance of a UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to at least one first instance of a UMB adapter or at least one second instance of a UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the UMB" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “the UMB adapter.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the UMB adapters" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter/the UMB adapter” (singular, line 3), the claims do not recite “UMB adapters” (plural). Additionally, it is unclear if “the UMB adapters” refers to multiple first instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one first instance of a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter,” claim 1, lines 3-4), multiple second instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one second instance of the UMB adapter,” claim 1, line 18), or both. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "second computing processor devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “one or more second computing processor devices.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the UMB adapters" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter/the UMB adapter” (singular, line 3), the claims do not recite “UMB adapters” (plural). Additionally, it is unclear if “the UMB adapters” refers to multiple first instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one first instance of a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter,” claim 1, lines 3-4), multiple second instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one second instance of the UMB adapter,” claim 1, line 18), or both. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the UMB adapters" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter/the UMB adapter” (singular, line 3), the claims do not recite “UMB adapters” (plural). Additionally, it is unclear if “the UMB adapters” refers to multiple first instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one first instance of a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter,” claim 1, lines 3-4), multiple second instances of a first UMB adapter (“at least one second instance of the UMB adapter,” claim 1, line 18), or both. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “at least one first instance of a UMB adapter” and “at least one second instance of a UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to at least one first instance of a UMB adapter or at least one second instance of a UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the UMB adapters" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB,” the claims do not recite “UMB adapters” (plural). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the UMB adapter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB adapter,” it is unclear if “the UMB adapter” refers to a first UMB adapter or a second UMB adapter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the UMB adapters" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is unclear, as while previous claims recite “a first UMB adapter” and “a second UMB,” the claims do not recite “UMB adapters” (plural). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Maddala et al. U.S. 2022/0391918) in view of Barsade et al. (U.S. 11,647,095) and further in view of Surana et al. (U.S. 11,963,020).
With respect to claim 1, Maddala teaches a system for universal message brokering, the system comprising: a first computing platform including a first memory and one or more first computing processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the first memory stores at least one first instance of a Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter, executable by at least one of the one or first computing processor devices, wherein the at least one first instance of the UMB adapter is configured to, upon activation: receive a message from the first computing platform, wherein the message is received in a first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99), implement first Artificial Intelligence (AI) including first Machine Learning (ML) (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 136; page 7, paragraph 107) to analyze the message to identify (i) the first computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99) and (ii) a second computing platform to which the message is to be broadcasted (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 311; page 6, paragraph 100); to convert the message from the first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99); and broadcast the message (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 425; page 6, paragraph 97); to the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100); a second computing platform including a second memory and one or more second computing processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the second memory stores at least one second instance of the UMB adapter, executable by at least one of the one or more second computing processor devices, wherein the least one second instance of the UMB adapter is configured to, upon activation: receive the message (Maddala, page 6, paragraph 97); and applied by the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100).
Maddala does not explicitly teach implement second AI including second ML; and implement the second AI including the second ML.
However, Surana teaches implement second AI including second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63); and implement the second AI including the second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maddala in view of Surana in order to enable implement second AI including second ML; and implement the second AI including the second ML. One would be motivated to do so in order to negotiate a data driven model capability in the communication network in an effective manner (Surana, col. 6, lines 27-29).
The combination of Maddala and Surana does not explicitly teach to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format.
However, Barsade teaches to a universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 410; col. 15, lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maddala and Surana in view of Barsade in order to enable to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format. One would be motivated to do so in order to facilitate data transfer operations between different applications (Barsade, col. 1, lines 31-32).
With respect to claim 13, Maddala teaches a computer-implemented method for universal message brokering, the computer-implemented method executed by one or more computing processor devices and comprising: receiving, at a first Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter deployed in a first computing platform, a message from the first computing platform, wherein the message is received in a first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99); implementing, at the first UMB adapter, first Artificial Intelligence (AI) including first Machine Learning (ML) (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 136; page 7, paragraph 107) to analyze the message to identify (i) the first computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99) and (ii) a second computing platform to which the message is to be broadcasted (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 311; page 6, paragraph 100); to convert the message from the first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99); broadcasting the message (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 425; page 6, paragraph 97); to the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100); receiving, at a second UMB adapter deployed in the second computing platform, the message (Maddala, page 6, paragraph 97); and applied by the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100).
Maddala does not explicitly teach implementing, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML; and implementing, at the second UMB adapter, second AI including second ML.
However, Surana teaches implementing, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63); and implementing, at the second UMB adapter, second AI including second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maddala in view of Surana in order to enable implementing, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML; and implementing, at the second UMB adapter, second AI including second ML. One would be motivated to do so in order to negotiate a data driven model capability in the communication network in an effective manner (Surana, col. 6, lines 27-29).
The combination of Maddala and Surana does not explicitly teach to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format.
However, Barsade teaches to a universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 410; col. 15, lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maddala and Surana in view of Barsade in order to enable to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; and to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format. One would be motivated to do so in order to facilitate data transfer operations between different applications (Barsade, col. 1, lines 31-32).
With respect to claim 17, Maddala teaches a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising sets of codes for causing one or more computing devices to: receive, at a first Universal Message Broker (UMB) adapter deployed in a first computing platform, a message from the first computing platform, wherein the message is received in a first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99); implement, at the first UMB adapter, first Artificial Intelligence (AI) including first Machine Learning (ML) (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 136; page 7, paragraph 107) to analyze the message to identify (i) the first computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99) and (ii) a second computing platform to which the message is to be broadcasted (Maddala, Fig. 3, element 311; page 6, paragraph 100); to convert the message from the first message format (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 405; page 6, paragraph 99); broadcast the message (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 425; page 6, paragraph 97); to the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100); receive, at a second UMB adapter deployed in the second computing platform the message (Maddala, page 6, paragraph 97); applied by the second computing platform (Maddala, Fig. 4, element 420; page 6, paragraph 100).
Maddala does not explicitly teach implement, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML; and implement, at the second UMB adapter, the second AI including the second ML.
However, Surana teaches implement, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63); and implement, at the second UMB adapter, the second AI including the second ML (Surana, col. 22, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maddala in view of Surana in order to enable implement, at the first UMB adapter, second AI including second ML; and implement, at the second UMB adapter, the second AI including the second ML. One would be motivated to do so in order to negotiate a data driven model capability in the communication network in an effective manner (Surana, col. 6, lines 27-29).
The combination of Maddala and Surana does not explicitly teach to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format.
However, Barsade teaches to a universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); in the universal message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 408; col. 15, lines 33-35); to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format (Barsade, Fig. 4A, element 410; col. 15, lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maddala and Surana in view of Barsade in order to enable to a universal message format; in the universal message format; in the universal message format; to convert the message from the universal message format to a second message format. One would be motivated to do so in order to facilitate data transfer operations between different applications (Barsade, col. 1, lines 31-32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
March 11, 2026