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 .
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed on April 23, 2024, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/2024, 12/23/2024, 7/16/2024, 7/17/2024 and 1/6/2026 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 § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for utilizing local workgroups.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 16 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “maintaining architecture, wherein the architecture comprises a group; maintaining information about a work group that identifies a group of respective; receiving a request to invoke the group, wherein the request is associated with a request initiator; determining that the request initiator is a member of the work group; processing a first part of the request using the group; and processing a second part of the request using the group” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processor, memory, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 1; system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 9; computer-readable medium, system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 16) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processor, memory, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 1; system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 9; computer-readable medium, system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 16). The processor, memory, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 1; system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 9; computer-readable medium, system, processor, microservices, remote microservices, remote computers in claim 16, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the microservices in claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12 and 17-20; remote microservices in claims 2, 5-6, 8, 10, 17-20; remote computers in claim 2, 13-15; system in claim 4, 11-13, 15, 17 and 20; proxy in claim 12; communication channel in claim 13; peer-to-peer connection in claim 18; stretched isolated environment in claim 19, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220092077 - hereinafter Darden) in view of Bleeker et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230082014 - hereinafter Bleeker) in view of McCue et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230229291 - hereinafter McCue).
Re. claim 1, Darden teaches:
A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and [Darden; ¶38].
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: [Darden; ¶38].
maintaining a microservices architecture on the system, wherein the microservices architecture comprises a group of microservices; [Darden; ¶16 shows collection (group) of microservices, and shows data stored for the microservice such as “the microservice architecture 100 provides a collection of small services (referred to herein as either microservices or services) that are loosely coupled together to provide the same overall functionality to, for example, endpoints deployed at a particular retail location. As shown in FIG. 1, each microservice has access to respective data (i.e., microservices data) that the microservice needs in order to provide the required functionality. For example, the Pricelist microservice has access to pricing data for items purchased by shoppers”].
Darden doesn’t teach, Bleeker teaches:
maintaining information about a work group that identifies a group of respective remote microservices on respective remote computers; [Bleeker; ¶30-¶31 shows work group as there are monitoring devices which remotely communicate to the remote clinic such as “the patient may arrive at a remote clinic for a virtual consult, wherein a telehealth device 218 may authenticate the patient, and may automatically join the patient to a previously created user interface extensions, macros, and xAPI calls. These extensions, macros, and xAPI calls may be mediated by, for example, an authentication microservice. The medical provider may join the telehealth consult 220 natively through the provider's user interface (e.g., via the recipient entity device 106). The patient intake server 104, for example, may mediate guest tokens to facilitate access to the telehealth consult, and may verify the correct meeting information when the meeting initiates” and “if the medical provider prescribes in-home monitoring, a network provisioning microservice 222 may leverage a cloud network management API to provision a cellular gateway, associated monitoring devices, and corresponding networking access. In an embodiment, drop shipment may be automated through the server. As a result, the patient may receive a pre-configured network and monitoring device(s) 224, and the medical monitoring devices may publish data to a collection microservice 226, that may render data visualization to the medical provider user interface in real-time”].
receiving a request to invoke the group of microservices, wherein the request is associated with a request initiator; [Bleeker; ¶30-¶31 shows medical provider prescribing (request invoking) in home monitoring for a patient].
processing a first part of the request using the group of microservices; and [Bleeker; ¶30 first part of request is authentication of user joining the consult such as “the patient may arrive at a remote clinic for a virtual consult, wherein a telehealth device 218 may authenticate the patient”].
processing a second part of the request using the group of respective remote microservices. [Bleeker; ¶30-¶31 second part of request defined by the second party joining the virtual consult such as “medical provider may join the telehealth consult 220 natively through the provider's user interface (e.g., via the recipient entity device 106). The patient intake server 104, for example, may mediate guest tokens to facilitate access to the telehealth consult, and may verify the correct meeting information when the meeting initiates”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Bleeker to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Bleeker since “major point of emphasis in the healthcare industry is accurately and efficiently performing patient intake, as this can pose a substantial challenge for traditional systems”. [Bleeker; ¶5].
Darden doesn’t teach, McCue teaches:
determining that the request initiator is a member of the work group; [McCue; ¶35 and ¶116 shows users in a group and then authentication performed for individual putting in a request].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by McCue to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of McCue since “the user interface can require users to scroll and/or otherwise navigate through data—from users, applications, and/or the like—to understand context of the communication and effectively utilize the communication platform”. [McCue; ¶3].
Re. claim 7, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches system of claim 1.
Darden doesn’t teach, McCue teaches:
wherein a group of work groups comprises the work group, and wherein determining that the request initiator is the member of the work group comprises:
determining, from the group of work groups, that the request initiator is the member of the work group. [McCue; ¶35 and ¶116 shows users in a group and then authentication performed for individual putting in a request].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by McCue to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of McCue since “the user interface can require users to scroll and/or otherwise navigate through data—from users, applications, and/or the like—to understand context of the communication and effectively utilize the communication platform”. [McCue; ¶3].
Re. claim 9,
Method of claim 9 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 16,
Medium of claim 16 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 18, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches medium of claim 16.
Darden doesn’t teach, Bleeker teaches:
wherein processing the second part of the request using the respective remote microservices comprises invoking a first remote microservice of the respective remote microservices, the first remote microservice invoking a second remote microservice of the respective remote microservices via a peer-to-peer connection. [Bleeker; ¶30-¶31 second part of request defined by the second party joining the virtual consult such as “medical provider may join the telehealth consult 220 natively through the provider's user interface (e.g., via the recipient entity device 106). The patient intake server 104, for example, may mediate guest tokens to facilitate access to the telehealth consult, and may verify the correct meeting information when the meeting initiates”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Bleeker to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Bleeker since “major point of emphasis in the healthcare industry is accurately and efficiently performing patient intake, as this can pose a substantial challenge for traditional systems”. [Bleeker; ¶5].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200202301 - hereinafter Chen) in view of Schornack et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250272660 - hereinafter Schornack).
Re. claim 2, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches system of claim 1.
Darden doesn’t teach, Chen teaches:
wherein processing the second part of the request using the group of respective remote microservices comprises:
based on determining to process the request using a first microservice of the group of respective remote microservices instead of a second microservice of the group of microservices, [Chen; ¶110 shows ability of one set of users ability to view certain content while another set of user can not].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Chen to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Chen since “can manage the access permissions of the system simply and efficiently, which greatly reduces the burden and cost of the system permission management, and makes the system permission management more compliant with the business management specifications of the application system”. [Chen; ¶4].
Darden doesn’t teach, Schornack teaches:
identifying a user account associated with the first microservice within the work group, [Schornack; ¶48 shows user account associated with the system such as “workflow tool 110a can a list of external cloud accounts for private computing resources hosted on the external cloud environment for exclusive use by a user in the VPC 130”].
fetching a connection associated with a remote computer of the remote computers, wherein the remote computer corresponds to the user account, to produce a fetched connection, and writing request details that correspond to the request to the fetched connection. [Schornack; ¶48 and ¶84 shows query and relational database for the account using remote server (cloud environment)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Schornack to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Schornack since “standards are periodically superseded by faster or more efficient equivalents having essentially the same functions”. [Schornack; ¶100].
Re. claim 3, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue in view of Chen in view of Schornack teaches system of claim 2.
Darden doesn’t teach, Schornack teaches:
wherein the first microservice corresponds to an updated version of the second microservice. [Schornack; ¶48-¶53].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Schornack to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Schornack since “standards are periodically superseded by faster or more efficient equivalents having essentially the same functions”. [Schornack; ¶100].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Schornack in view of Bolagani et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220283891 - hereinafter Bolagani).
Re. claim 4, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue in view of Chen in view Schornack teaches system of claim 2.
Darden doesn’t teach, Bolagani teaches:
wherein the identifying, the fetching, and the writing are performed by a connection manager of the system that is separate from the group of microservices. [Bolagani; ¶90 shows modules are separate such as “each of the generating module 414, triggering module 416, identifying module 418, fetching module 420, executing module 422, recording module 424, evaluating module 426, transferring module 428, creating module 430, validating module 432, and the communication module 434, and each of the engines disclosed herein may be physically separated into two or more interacting and discrete blocks, units, devices, and/or modules without departing from the scope of the inventive concepts”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bolagani in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5, 8, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Khan et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240202384 - hereinafter Khan).
Re. claim 5, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches system of claim 1.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein processing the first part of the request using the group of microservices, and processing the second part of the request using the group of respective remote microservices comprises:
based on determining that the request initiator is the member of the work group, and based on determining that a current target microservice of the request is owned by a user identity that is part of the work group, forwarding the request to the group of respective remote microservices. [Khan; ¶150 shows two methods of identification, one where a user is allowed access, second where user isn’t allowed access].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 8, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches system of claim 1.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein the request is a first request, wherein the request initiator is a first request initiator, and wherein the operations further comprise:
based on receiving a second request associated with a second request initiator, and based on determining that the second request initiator is not the member of the work group, processing the request using the group of microservices and independently of the group of respective remote microservices. [Khan; ¶150 shows two methods of identification, one where a user is allowed access, second where user isn’t allowed access].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches Method of claim 8.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein the work group comprises a first identifier of the work group, a second identifier of a group of user accounts in the work group, and a third identifier of the respective remote microservices. [Khan; ¶150].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 17, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches medium of claim 16.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein a group of work groups comprises the work group, and wherein the system is configured to process respective requests using respective combinations of respective remote microservices of respective groups of the group of work groups and the microservices. [Khan; ¶150 shows two methods of identification, one where a user is allowed access, second where user isn’t allowed access].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 19, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches medium of claim 16.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein the microservices and the respective remote microservices comprise a stretched isolated environment for a first user account that is isolated from access by a second user account that has access to the microservices. [Khan; ¶150 shows where a second user isn’t allowed access].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Shek et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220414601 - hereinafter Shek).
Re. claim 6, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches system of claim 1.
Darden doesn’t teach, Shek teaches:
wherein processing the first part of the request using the group of microservices, and processing the second part of the request using the group of respective remote microservices comprises:
based on determining that the request initiator is the member of the work group, and based on determining that a current target microservice of the request is not owned by a user identity that is part of the work group, forwarding the request to the group of microservices. [Shek; ¶29-¶30 shows determination whether user is permitted to access requested content, ¶94 shows the ability to forward content such as “the gateway service 206 can be configured to communicate the output from the centralized access control service 210 to the multitenant collaboration tool 212 which, in response, can communicate the requested/identified content to the gateway service 204 which, in turn, can forward the content to the client application executing on the client device 202”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Shek in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Tezak et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210209556 - hereinafter Tezak).
Re. claim 11, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches method of claim 9.
Darden doesn’t teach, Tezak teaches:
further comprising:
based on changing the work group to produce a changed work group, communicating, by the system, the changed work group to a multiplex connection manager of the system that is configured to maintain at least one respective connection with at least one of the respective computers. [Tezak; ¶84 shows after a change is made, notifications are sent to managers of system such as “a notification is sent to users in the logical group of a SOW when changes are made to the SOW. For example, the SOW manager 150 generates and transmits a notification to the users in the “North” logical group when a change is made to a SOW in the “North” logical group. This may be applicable to any type of change made to a SOW, such as adding a note or uploading a file, or both. The notification may include information about the change. For example, the SOW manager 150 may generate and transmit an email that indicates that a new note was added to a particular SOW in the “North” logical group and identify the particular SOW. This keeps users informed of changes to SOWs in their logical group”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tezak in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 12, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches method of claim 9.
Darden doesn’t teach, Tezak teaches:
further comprising:
based on changing the work group to produce a changed work group, communicating, by the system, the changed work group to a requests redirection proxy of the system that is configured to intercept and redirect requests that are incoming to a microservice of the microservices or that are outgoing from the microservice. [Tezak; ¶84 and ¶112].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tezak in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches method of claim 9.
Darden doesn’t teach, Tezak teaches:
further comprising:
based on changing the work group to produce a changed work group, communicating, by the system, the changed work group to a user communication agent of a remote computer of the remote computers, wherein the user communication agent is configured to maintain a communication channel with the system. [Tezak; ¶84 and ¶112].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tezak in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Tezak in view of Khan.
Re. claim 14, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue in view of Tezak teaches method of claim 13.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein the communicating is performed based on determining that the remote computer is associated with a user account that is the member of the work group. [Khan; ¶150].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 15, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue in view of Tezak teaches method of claim 13.
Darden doesn’t teach, Khan teaches:
wherein the user communication agent is a first user communication agent, wherein the remote computer is a first remote computer, and further comprising:
refraining, by the system, from communicating the changed work group to a second user communication agent of a second remote computer, based on the second remote computer being determined to lack a user account that is the member of the work group. [Khan; ¶150 shows two methods of identification, one where a user is allowed access, second where user isn’t allowed access].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Khan in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Bleeker in view of Chen in view of Di Girolamo et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250106162 - hereinafter Di).
Re. claim 20, Darden in view of Bleeker in view of McCue teaches medium of claim 16.
Darden doesn’t teach, Bleeker teaches:
wherein processing the second part of the request using the respective remote microservices corresponds to a first load on the system,
wherein invoking a group of microservices of the microservices that is local to the system and that corresponds to the respective remote microservices corresponds to a second load on the system, and [Bleeker; ¶19 shows the diagnostics library can be stored locally].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Darden by including limitation(s) as taught by Bleeker to include the above features in the invention of Darden. One would be motivated to modify Darden with the teachings of Bleeker since “major point of emphasis in the healthcare industry is accurately and efficiently performing patient intake, as this can pose a substantial challenge for traditional systems”. [Bleeker; ¶5].
Darden doesn’t teach, Di teaches:
wherein the first load is less than the second load. [Di; ¶162-¶168 shows “a corresponding fourth of one or more variability of delay thresholds (denoted herein as “VAR_2>VAR_thresholdB_2”); (xv) a load measurement for the first access network satisfying (e.g., being less than or equal to) a corresponding third of one or more load thresholds (denoted herein as “L_1<L_thresholdB_1”); and (xvi) a load measurement for the second access network satisfying (e.g., being less than or equal to) a corresponding fourth of one or more load thresholds (denoted herein as “L 2<L_thresholdA_2”)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Di in the system of Darden, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628