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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, step 3.1, the complementary relation graph structure is represented with ACWG. However, in claim 1, step 4, as well as claim 7, steps 4.2.1, 4.2.11, 4.3.2, and claim 8, steps 5.1.4 and 5.3.5, AWCG is used to represent the complementary relation graph. Claim 1, step 4 teaches that the complementary relation graph structure AWCG was created in step 3, but step 3 teaches ACWG as representing the complementary relation graph structure. The examiner suggests amending the claims to use one variable name to represent the complementary relation graph structure throughout all of the claims.
In claim 1, step 4, the RESTful service is transformed into an embedded vector, however, multiple RESTful services were mentioned in previous steps. Step 4.1 also mentions that any RESTful service a is transformed into an embedded vector, implying that there may be one or more RESTful services. Additionally, at step 5.1, a distance between different RESTful services is computed to be the vector distance of the RESTful service. This sets a single vector distance for “the RESTful service”, but different RESTful services are mentioned, implying multiple RESTful services. It is not clear for which RESTful service that a vector distance is computed. Step 5.3 also has similar issues in that a distance between different service functions is determined to be the service function’s vector distance, but it is not clear which service function is “the service function”.
In claim 9, a hinge function is taught but is referred to as a hinge loss function in claims 1 and 9. The examiner suggests amending the claim to read “hinge loss function” for consistency to eliminate ambiguity.
No Prior Art Rejections
Claims 1-10 are not rejected under a prior art rejection. The closest art found that taught some of the limitations in this application was Xu (Towards machine-learning-driven effective mashup recommendations from big data in mobile networks and the Internet-of-Things) in which Xu teaches developing recommendations for mashups, which are a combined group of services to form a new service, using machine learning. Xu teaches using machine learning techniques, such as neural embedding to generate a distributed representation of the mashups and using a k-means model to cluster the mashups to measure similarity between mashups. However, Xu does not teach everything in the application, such as conducting recommendations on RESTful services, creating a graph structure based on the relation between RESTful services, and determining the strength of a complementary relation between two RESTful services.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4331. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/D.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights