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 .
Claims 1-10, 13-22 are presented for the examination. Claims 11-12 are canceled.
§ 101 2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3,5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Claims 1, 3 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 for abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the “ identifying a first microservice having intermediate information needed to create a final response to a request for information”, “ determining a delay in receiving the intermediate information from the first” recite a mental process since “determining” and “identifying” are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Under Prong 2, the additional element “generating a predicted response from the first microservice, the predicted response including predicted intermediate information; applying the predicted intermediate information to a response process for determining the final response; receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements “ receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information"- this generally have been a mental process although the first microservice could be a generic computer component if the spec describes it as actual computer software in computer hardware.
“generating a predicted response from the first microservice, the predicted response including predicted intermediate information; applying the predicted intermediate information to a response process for determining the final response” - this is mere instructions to apply the mental process under mpep 2106.05(f), amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and is merely applying the judicial exception, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
As to Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 for abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the “ determining, based on the comparison, the actual intermediate information is a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information” , “ determining, based on the comparison, the actual intermediate information is a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information”, “ ranking performance of a set of receiving microservices including the first microservice; wherein determining the delay comprises: identifying the first microservice as having a performance ranking below a threshold level., “ determining the delay ”, “recite a mental process since “determining”, “ identifying” are function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Under Prong 2, the additional element “generating a predicted response from the first microservice, the predicted response including predicted intermediate information; applying the predicted intermediate information to a response process for determining the final response; receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information, taking the responsive action includes performing a distributed cancel to end ongoing processes relying on the predicted intermediate information, generating the predicted response is performed by a sidecar response predictor of the first microservice, receiving a request for information from a client device.” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements “ receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information"- this generally have been a mental process although the first microservice could be a generic computer component if the spec describes it as actual computer software in computer hardware.
“generating a predicted response from the first microservice, the predicted response including predicted intermediate information; applying the predicted intermediate information to a response process for determining the final response, taking the responsive action includes rolling back the response process to apply the actual intermediate response, taking the responsive action includes performing a distributed cancel to end ongoing processes relying on the predicted intermediate information, generating the predicted response is performed by a sidecar response predictor of the first microservice, receiving a request for information from a client device..” - this is mere instructions to apply the mental process under mpep 2106.05(f), amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and is merely applying the judicial exception, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
4. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokashi ( US 10592578 B1) in view of Liddicott( US 10158735 B2) and further in view of KUROYANAG(US 20140204416 A1).
As to claim 1, Mokashi teaches a first microservice having intermediate information needed to create a final response to a request for information( the operating environment 100 may further include one or more user devices 102, one or more origin servers 104, and a predictive content push training system 140. The CDN service 122 may further implement a predictive content push system 130, one or more cache servers 126, and a cache data store 128, col 3, ln 65-67 to col 4, ln 1-6/ The predictive content push system 130 of the CDN service 122 may include a user group identifier 132, a content identifier 134, a training and validation manager 136, an access logs data store 138, and a model data store 139. The access logs data store 138 may store, in entries associated with specific users and/or user devices 102, logs , col 5, ln 50-65/ each POP 120 is a collection of related computing devices utilized to implement CDN functionality on behalf of one or many providers. For example, the predictive content push systems 130, the one or more cache servers 126, and/or the cache data store 128 , col 14, ln 22-30/ transmits the requested data object(s) to the cache server 126 at (14). Alternatively, not shown, the requested data object(s) are stored in the cache data store 128 and thus the cache server 126 instead requests and receives the requested data object(s) from the cache data store 128 , col 19, ln 9-15)
sending an intermediate request for the intermediate information to the first microservice( Users, by way of user devices 102, may interact with a CDN service 122 of a POP 120 to request content resources (e.g., one or more data objects). In an embodiment, the CDN service 122 may include a host (not shown) that selects a cache server 126 to deliver the requested data object to the user device 102. , col 4, ln 57-65),
determining a delay in receiving the intermediate information from the first microservice( For example, a user device typically requests content resources from a CDN in response to a user providing an input indicating that the user would like to view a particular content page. The CDN can then retrieve the requested content resources from a local cache and/or an origin server, and forward the retrieved content resources to the user device. This process, however, may result in a delay noticeable to the user. In particular, a few seconds may pass between when the user provides an input requesting to view a content page and when the user device has retrieved the appropriate content resources and is able to render and display the requested content page. In some cases, the delay may be long enough such that the user attempts to request another content page., col 2, ln 10-24/ Several factors may contribute to this delay. For example, the CDN may have to retrieve the requested content resources from an origin server. The time spent by the CDN to transmit a request to the origin server, by the origin server to retrieve the requested content resources from memory, and by the origin server to transmit the content resources to the CDN can contribute to the delay. As another example, the length of the delay may depend on the conditions of the network over which the user device and CDN communicate. The delay may increase if the network is congested, the available network bandwidth is limited, etc. As another example, the user device may have relatively few computing resources (e.g., disk space, central processing power, graphical processing power, memory, network bandwidth, internal bus capacity, etc.) available to render and display the content page and/or lack certain features (e.g., multiple central processing units (CPUs), a stand-alone graphics card, high performance random access memory (RAM), a high speed network interface, etc.) that may enable faster content resource retrieval and/or content page rendering., col 2, ln 24-40)
generating a predicted response from the first microservice, the predicted response including predicted intermediate information( a content delivery network (“CDN”) that predicts content or network resources (e.g., a data object, such as a video file, an audio file, a script, an image, a document, etc.) that may be requested by a user device in the future and transmits or pushes such resources to the user device prior to receiving a request. The predictive techniques implemented by the CDN may reduce a latency of delivering requested content resources and/or a latency of the user device in rendering and displaying a content page (e.g., a network page, a Web page, etc.), col 2, ln 1-10)
applying the predicted intermediate information to a response process for determining the final response( In particular, a predictive content push training system in the CDN environment can train various artificial intelligence models (e.g., stochastic models, such as Markov models, neural networks, etc., and/or combinations thereof) to predict content resources that may be requested by a user device in the future in light of user attributes, previous content pages visited by the user, and/or the like. The predictive content push training system can then distribute the artificial intelligence models to various CDNs. A CDN can use one or more of the artificial intelligence models to determine what additional content resources should be obtained in response to a user device requesting a first set of content resources. The CDN can transmit the first set of content resources to the user device, col 3, ln 35-50);
receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information( The access logs data store 138 may store, in entries associated with specific users and/or user devices 102, logs indicating previous content pages requested by the user and/or user device 102, content pages visited by the user and/or user device 102 after requesting data object(s) for a specific content page, data object(s) pushed to user devices 102 prior to receiving a request for such data object(s) (e.g., as indicated by link headers), attributes of the user, and/or the like. After the CDN service 122 transmits data object(s) to the user device 102, the CDN service 122 can store the link header in the access logs data store 138 in an entry associated with the user device 102 that submitted the data object or content page request and/or the user operating the user device 102, col 5, ln 52-67),
and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information(The training and validation manager 136 can store information identifying a difference between the predicted and actual requested data object(s) and/or information identifying that there is no difference between the predicted and actual requested data object(s) in the access logs data store 138, col 13, ln 27-34/ after the content identifier 134 predicts data object(s) to retrieve in response to the content page request transmitted by the user device 102, the training and validation manager 136 can compare the data object(s) predicted to be requested by the user device 102 with data object(s) referenced by the link header received from the origin server 104 in response to the content page transmitted by the user device 102. Any differences (or lack of differences) between the artificial intelligence model-predicted data object(s) and the data object(s) referenced in the link header can be stored by the training and validation manager 136 in the access logs data store 138, col 12, ln 32-45/ the training and validation manager 136 can compare the indication received from the content identifier 134 with the contents of the link header to determine whether the models predicted the same data object(s) to retrieve as the link header. Optionally, if there is a difference between the indicated data object(s) to retrieve (as received from the content identifier 134) and the data object(s) to retrieve as indicated by the link header, then the training and validation manager 136 stores the difference or an indication of the difference in the access logs data store 138 at (3). Alternatively or in addition, not shown, the training and validation manager 136 stores the difference, an indication of a difference, and/or an indication of a lack of a difference in the access logs data store 138. In other embodiments, not shown, the training and validation manager 136 transmits the difference (or an indication of a difference or a lack of a difference) directly to the predictive content push training system 140, col 19, ln 48-67).
Liddicott teaches identifying a first microservice having intermediate information needed to create a final response to a request for information, generating a predicted response( client proxy may be incorporated into client 110 or another network device (e.g., a transparent bridge), col 5 ,ln 40-45/ After receiving the compressed response from the server proxy, the client proxy may then decompress the response and transmit the decompressed response to the client, col 3, ln 59-65/ a client proxy may generate, for example, read-ahead requests. The read-ahead requests may be speculative in the sense that the client proxy generates the read-ahead request based on a prediction about which data the client will request in the future. Responses to read-ahead requests may be discarded after being used to populate synchronized compression dictionaries associated with each of the client proxy and the server proxy , col 3, ln 47-55/ Client proxy 120 may be able to make a sufficiently accurate prediction when, for example, client 110 has been receiving a file a block at a time and continues to request data in the same or similar sizes. Client proxy 120 may then store the received response in memory (compressing the response using compression dictionary 160 when such an entry exists). In such cases, although the stored response may not be accepted by client 110 as is on account of mismatched message IDs or signing fields (e.g., where the two responses are not sufficiently similar), server proxy 140 may send client proxy 120 the correctly matching message ID and/or signing field. Client proxy 120 may then replace the message ID and/or signing field in the stored response (i.e., the response to the read-ahead request predicted to match the actual client request). In doing so, client proxy 120 may effectively create a valid signed response while transmitting little data (e.g., a 4K read response could be reduced to approximately 30 bytes). Any time client proxy 120 receives the same request from client 110, server proxy 140 may forward client proxy 120 the updated message ID and signing fields so that client proxy 120 may turn the previously stored response into a valid signed response, col 11, ln 1-20/ that client proxy 120 may issue the request based on a prediction that it will subsequently receive an actual client request that mirrors or is highly similar to the speculative read-ahead request. In some instances, the prediction may be based on previously received client requests or responses thereto, while in other instances the prediction may be based on an assessment of other network conditions or events, col 7, ln 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of Mokashi with Liddicott to incorporate the above feature because this reduces network request response times over a server-signed network connection, includes a client proxy that communicates with a client over a network connection running a server-signing protocol.
Kuroyanag teaches receiving a request for information from a client device for generating the predicted response from the first microservice, receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information( the information processing terminal 150 communicates with the MFP 110 each time a user instruction for setting a specific item is received at the information processing terminal 150, for example, through a transaction of a HTTP request and a HTTP response. Depending on a condition of the network that connects the MFP 110 and the information processing terminal 150 or a communications protocol used for communication, the response that is sent from the MFP 110 in response to the request from the information processing terminal 150 may delay, thus causing a slow response with respect to the user instruction regarding the settings operation, para[0033], ln 10-24/ while waiting for a response from the MFP 110 in response to a request for setting items on the MFP 110, the information processing terminal 150 predicts a result of executing settings operation at the MFP 110 in response to that request, and displays information based on the predicted execution result. Accordingly, the information processing terminal 150 displays information based on a predicted execution result, in response to the user instruction more quickly, even in case the response indicating the actual execution result from the MFP 110 is delayed, para[0025], ln 1-15/ The network communication device 112 and the network server 114 function as a receiver that receives a user instruction regarding settings operation from the information processing terminal 150, para[0047], ln 3-8/ The operation input 158 receives a user input for instructing the MFP 110 to execute settings operation, such as selection of a set value of an item being displayed on the settings operation screen. In response to the user input, the operation input 158 transmits information regarding a set value of the item to be set to the MFP 110 through the network communication device 152, as well as to the predictor 162, para[0057], ln 1-9/ the predictor 162 refers to the prediction model stored in the memory and managed by the prediction model manager 164 to predict an execution result of settings operation, which is being performed at the MFP 110 based on the information regarding a set value of the item. The predicted execution result generated by the predictor 162 is output to the response display 160, para[0058]/ based on the predicted execution result generated by the predictor 162, in prior to receiving a response from the MFP 110. When the response display 160 receives a response indicating the actual execution result of the settings operation from the MFP 110, the response display 160 obtains the difference between the actual execution result and the predicted execution result, and updates the predicted execution result on the display to reflect the actual execution result when there is any difference. More specifically, the predicted execution result will be changed to reflect the actual execution result, para[0059], ln 5-19/ When it is determined that the predicted execution result does not match the actual execution result ("NO" at S114), the operation proceeds to S115. At S115, the response display 160 of the information processing terminal 150 updates the display so as to display the fixed response indicating the actual execution result received from the MFP 110, para[0083]/ compares between the predicted execution result obtained at S107 and the actual execution result received at S109 to determine whether the predicted execution result matches the actual execution result, para[0082], ln 2-7).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this allows the information processing terminal is able to timely respond to the user input for improving operability for the user.
As to claim 2, Liddicott teaches returning a tentative response to the request for information based on the predicted intermediate information, the returning performed prior to receipt of the actual response( col 3, ln 46-67/ col 7, ln 9-25/ col 10, ln 35-55/ Fig. 3) for the same reason as to claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Liddicott teaches determining, based on the comparison, the actual intermediate information is a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information( col 9, ln 24-63); Mokashi teaches taking the responsive action includes rolling back the response process to apply the actual intermediate response( col 13, ln 50-67 to col 14, ln 1-20) and Kuroyanag teaches rolling back( para[0083]) for the same reason as to claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Liddicott teaches the receiving the actual response is performed during the response process, prior to determining the final response( col 3, ln 55-63) for the same reason as to claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, Mokashi teaches determining the delay ( col 2, ln 30-37), Liddicott teaches and generating the predicted response is performed by a sidecar response predictor of an application receiving the request for information (col 11, ln 1-20/ col 7, ln 20-30) for the same reason as to claim 1 above.
As to claim 8, Mokashi teaches determining the delay ( col 2, ln 30-37), Liddicott teaches and generating the predicted response is performed by a sidecar response predictor of the first microservice (col 11, ln 1-20/ col 7, ln 20-30) for the same reason as to claim 1 above.
As to claims 13, is rejected for the same reason as to claim 1 above. In additional, Mokashi teaches the processor set is structured, located, connected, and/or programmed to run program instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium( Each such computing device typically includes a processor (or multiple processors) that executes program instructions or modules stored in a memory or other non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or device (e.g., solid state storage devices, disk drives, etc.), col 22, 30-36).
As to claims 14, 15, 18, they are rejected for the same reasons as to claims 2, 3, 8 above.
As to claim 21, Kuroyanag teaches the set of instructions causing the processor to perform a method further comprising: returning a tentative response to the request for information based on the predicted intermediate information, the returning performed prior to receipt of the actual response( para[0058]/ para[0060], ln 12-21/ para[0071] to para[0072]/ para[0091]/ para[0123], ln 1-12/ para[0142]) for the same reason as to claim 1 above .
Claim(s) 5, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokashi (US 10158735 B2) in view of Liddicott( US 10158735 B2) in view of KUROYANAG(US 20140204416 A1) and further in view of Yarabolu(US 20220400122 A1).
As to claim 5, Yarabolu teaches determining, based on the comparison, the actual intermediate information is a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information; wherein: taking the responsive action includes performing a distributed cancel to end ongoing processes relying on the predicted intermediate information( n some examples, at step 214, cognitive auditing computing platform 120 may determine that the actual response data does not match the predicted response data (e.g., identifying a mismatch). As a result, at step 215, cognitive auditing computing platform 120 may flag, block, or otherwise prevent the actual response data from being sent to the user device (e.g., user computing device 110)., para[0041], ln 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this ensures that appropriate or necessary data is returned.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 5 above.
As to claim 10, Yarabolu teaches receiving the request for information from a client device( para[0025], ln 9-12) for the same reason as to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokashi (US 10158735 B2) in view of Liddicott( US 10158735 B2) in view of KUROYANAG(US 20140204416 A1) and further in view of Chen( US 20200059436 A1).
As to claim 6, Chen teaches ranking performance of a set of receiving microservices including the first microservice; wherein determining the delay comprises: identifying the first microservice as having a performance ranking below a threshold level( The policy scheduling is a scheduling technology in which priorities of different client services are determined according to delay requirements of different client services,, para[0120], ln 10-15/ if the expected transmission delay is less than 5 μs, the priority of the client service is the first priority. Because the client service after strict rate supervision is performed may not be congested, introduction of the transmission delay is related only to a quantity of client service pipes of first-priority client services (that is, a quantity of first-priority client services). The system can support a maximum of (5 μs−3 μs)/10.24 ns=195 client services whose transmission delay is less than 5 μs. That is, when the quantity of all allocated first-priority client service pipes does not exceed 195, it can be ensured that the transmission delay is within 5 μs, para[0124], ln 10-30).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this allows the transmission node uses the best effort delivery mechanism to transmit the client service.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokashi (US 10158735 B2) in view of Liddicott( US 10158735 B2) in view of KUROYANAG(US 20140204416 A1).and further in view of Yu( US 20210271923 A1).
As to claim 9, Yu teaches maintaining, by a sidecar change propagator, a response cache containing previous responses from a set of receiving microservices including the first microservice; wherein: generating the predicted response is performed with reference to the response cache( The enhancement module 220 can modify the prediction result from the first still image object detector based on a comparison with the history max score cache. For example, if the history max score cache includes a prediction result with a greater confidence value for a given patch, then the prediction result may be changed to the prediction result in the history max score cache., para[0024], ln 21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this provides the enhanced confidence score can be used to detect objects in a variety of applications.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokashi (US 10158735 B2) in view of Liddicott( US 10158735 B2) in view of KUROYANAG(US 20140204416 A1) and further in view of SHIMIZU( JP 2010033130 A).
As to claim 22, Kuroyanag teaches the set of instructions causing the processor to perform a method further comprising: determining, based on the comparison, the actual intermediate information is a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information; wherein: taking the responsive action includes rolling back the response process to apply the actual response( When it is determined that the predicted execution result does not match the actual execution result ("NO" at S114), the operation proceeds to S115. At S115, the response display 160 of the information processing terminal 150 updates the display so as to display the fixed response indicating the actual execution result received from the MFP 110, para[0083]).
SHIMIZU teaches a mismatch with respect to the predicted intermediate information; wherein: taking the responsive action includes rolling back the response process to apply the actual response( Then, if the actual input received late and the input when speculative execution was predicted do not match, the speculation execution failed and the status is returned to the previous time ( Rollback), and the process is re-executed based on the actual input, Sec: By such speculative execution, ln 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this ensures that the event is finally in accordance with the time stamp.
Response to the argument:
A. Applicant amendment filed on 9/03/04 has been considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argued in substance that :
(1) “ Essentially, Mokashi predicts "what will be requested," whereas the claims require predicting "what response will be returned." These are fundamentally different operation”
B. Examiner respectfully disagreed with Applicant's remarks:
As to the point (1), Kuroyanag teaches receiving a request for information from a client device for generating the predicted response from the first microservice, receiving an actual response from the first microservice, the actual response including actual intermediate information; and taking a responsive action based on a comparison of the actual intermediate information and the predicted intermediate information( the information processing terminal 150 communicates with the MFP 110 each time a user instruction for setting a specific item is received at the information processing terminal 150, for example, through a transaction of a HTTP request and a HTTP response. Depending on a condition of the network that connects the MFP 110 and the information processing terminal 150 or a communications protocol used for communication, the response that is sent from the MFP 110 in response to the request from the information processing terminal 150 may delay, thus causing a slow response with respect to the user instruction regarding the settings operation, para[0033], ln 10-24/ while waiting for a response from the MFP 110 in response to a request for setting items on the MFP 110, the information processing terminal 150 predicts a result of executing settings operation at the MFP 110 in response to that request, and displays information based on the predicted execution result. Accordingly, the information processing terminal 150 displays information based on a predicted execution result, in response to the user instruction more quickly, even in case the response indicating the actual execution result from the MFP 110 is delayed, para[0025], ln 1-15/ The network communication device 112 and the network server 114 function as a receiver that receives a user instruction regarding settings operation from the information processing terminal 150, para[0047], ln 3-8/ The operation input 158 receives a user input for instructing the MFP 110 to execute settings operation, such as selection of a set value of an item being displayed on the settings operation screen. In response to the user input, the operation input 158 transmits information regarding a set value of the item to be set to the MFP 110 through the network communication device 152, as well as to the predictor 162, para[0057], ln 1-9/ the predictor 162 refers to the prediction model stored in the memory and managed by the prediction model manager 164 to predict an execution result of settings operation, which is being performed at the MFP 110 based on the information regarding a set value of the item. The predicted execution result generated by the predictor 162 is output to the response display 160, para[0058]/ based on the predicted execution result generated by the predictor 162, in prior to receiving a response from the MFP 110. When the response display 160 receives a response indicating the actual execution result of the settings operation from the MFP 110, the response display 160 obtains the difference between the actual execution result and the predicted execution result, and updates the predicted execution result on the display to reflect the actual execution result when there is any difference. More specifically, the predicted execution result will be changed to reflect the actual execution result, para[0059], ln 5-19/ When it is determined that the predicted execution result does not match the actual execution result ("NO" at S114), the operation proceeds to S115. At S115, the response display 160 of the information processing terminal 150 updates the display so as to display the fixed response indicating the actual execution result received from the MFP 110, para[0083]/ compares between the predicted execution result obtained at S107 and the actual execution result received at S109 to determine whether the predicted execution result matches the actual execution result, para[0082], ln 2-7).
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.
Conclusion
US 20140204416 A1 teaches The match probability table of FIG. 9A stores information regarding the match probability in which the predicted execution result matches the actual execution result, when settings operation is predicted to be successful with respect to a request for setting a set value. The match probability is expressed as a ratio between the number of s
US 20200234259 A1 teaches The sportsbook operation managing center 460 determines whether or not the result prediction indicated by the vote information matches with the actual game result (S4011). That is, there is determined whether or not the user has made a right guess in relation to the game serving as the bet target. When it is determined that the result prediction indicated by the vote information matches with the actual game result.
US 20120233442 A1 teaches If the fetch unit later detects a corresponding return instruction, the fetch unit may send a request for the stored return address to the return address prediction unit. The return address prediction unit may then provide the requested return address to the instruction fetch unit as a predicted return address for the fetched return instruction. The instruction fetch unit may use the predicted return address to facilitate the fetching of subsequent blocks of instructions
US 20200004547 A1 teaches a number of ways in which the processing unit may seek to match asserted mispredict signals received from the result producing structure with corresponding requests that it has issued to the result producing structure. In a simple case, this may merely work on an assumption that a received asserted mispredict signal relates to the oldest request for which a result value is predicted, and for which the actual result value is still awaited.
US 20180181618 A1 teaches receiving actual execution results of the database operation commands returned by the database; then comparing the actual execution results of the database operation commands with predicted execution results. If the actual execution results are the same as the predicted execution results, issuing a transaction commit command to the database, so that the database commits a target transaction.
US 20070006195 A1 teaches Upon completion of the execution of the original code segment, the predicted value of the item is compared to the actual value of the item. If the two values are equal, a result of executing the original code segment using the predicted value of the item is committed. Conversely, if the two values are not equal, the state is rolled back to the snapshot state, and the original code segment is executed using the actual value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LECHI TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3767. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8 PM.
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 Young Kevin can be reached on (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.
/LECHI TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights