DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 9/10/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 18 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
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 – 3, 6, 14 – 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divesh et al (US 20230353453, hereinafter Divesh), in view of Li et al (US 20230024419, hereinafter Li).
As per claim 1, Divesh discloses: A computing system comprising: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, from a user computing device, a user request query associated with contextual information; (Divesh figure 4 and [0045]: “Call flow 400 begins with operation 405 in which a potential use case is identified and provided to service creation service 310. Next, in operation 410, SLA parameters are identified for the use case identified in operation 405.”)
determining, based on the user request query, computing instructions defining one or more parameters to satisfy the user request query; (Divesh figure 4 and [0045]: “Based on these identified criteria, a server configuration template is generated in operation 415.”; [0046]: “In operation 420, the newly generated server configuration template is provided to design and validation service 315, which identifies and optimizes parameters specific to the use case in operation 425. For example, design and validation service 315 may determine an initial number of RUs to associate with the newly generated server configuration template, as well as initial memory and compute allocations for the different mobile core network elements to be implemented to meet the criteria of the use case.”.)
inputting the computing instructions into a task generator, wherein the task generator, in response to the computing instructions, is configured to generate one or more executable tasks, the one or more executable tasks associated with satisfying the user request query in accordance with the one or more parameters; (Divesh [0047]: “In operation 430, the parameters identified in operation 425 are provided to AI/ML service 330, which identifies changes to be made to the parameters based upon historic server configurations in operation 435. In operation 440, the AI/ML algorithm builds core logic for a server configuration to be implemented as a deployment within cloud 340 to service the SLAs associated with the use case.”; [0048]: “In operation 445, the server configuration determined in operation 440 is provided to automation service 320. Automation service 320 implements the server configuration as a deployment within cloud 340 via operation 450. A deployment may be implemented within cloud 340 by assigning specific CPU cores and memory allocations to the functional units necessary to implement the deployment.”; [0049]: “KPIs from the test runs are received by reporting service 325 in operation 465, which reports the KPIs to AI/ML service 330 in operation 470. Based upon the received KPIs, AI/ML service 330 adjust the parameters for the use case in operation 470. Operation 470 may also include building or updating a heuristic algorithm to implement future changes to server configuration template parameters based on the received KPIs.”. Examiner notes that the updating server configuration template is mapped to the claimed “generate one or more executable tasks.)
generating a real-time communication channel between the computing system and the user computing device; (Divesh [0039]: portal 307.)
and transmitting, over the real-time communication channel, one or more command instructions to update a user interface of the user computing device to display the one or more executable tasks. (Divesh [0050]: “Next, in operation 475, updates to the server configuration template are provided to service creation service 310 in operation 480, which makes the server configuration templates available on the portal 307 for users to select.”)
Divesh did not explicitly teach:
wherein the executable tasks are for data capture;
Li teaches:
wherein the executable tasks are for data capture; (Li [0041])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into that of Divesh in order to have the executable tasks are for data capture. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily recognize that the claimed limitation is merely an intended usage for the executable tasks, and does not carry particular patentable weights, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Divesh and Li further teach:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, over the real-time communication channel task execution data, the task execution data generated in response to an execution of the one or more executable tasks. (Divesh [0055] – [0056])
As per claim 3, the combination of Divesh and Li further teach:
The computing system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the task execution data, updated contextual information; determining, based on the updated contextual information, updated computing instructions defining one or more updated parameters; and inputting the updated computing instructions into the task generator, wherein the task generator, in response to the updated computing instructions, is configured to generate one or more updated executable tasks associated with the updated contextual information. (Divesh [0055] – [0056])
As per claim 6, the combination of Divesh and Li further teach:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the contextual information is indicative of a product or service associated with the user request query. (Divesh [0044])
As per claim 14, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the method variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the method variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the method variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer-readable media variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divesh and Li, and in view of Aswathanarayana et al (US 20170041189, hereinafter Aswathanarayana).
As per claim 4, the combination of Divesh and Li did not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 2, wherein the operations comprise: validating the task execution data, wherein validating the task execution data comprises determining the task execution data satisfies at least one of: (i) a data format, (ii) a data quality, or (iii) a data consistency.
However, Aswathanarayana teaches:
The computing system of claim 2, wherein the operations comprise: validating the task execution data, wherein validating the task execution data comprises determining the task execution data satisfies at least one of: (i) a data format, (ii) a data quality, or (iii) a data consistency. (Aswathanarayana [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Aswathanarayana into that of Divesh and Li in order to validate the task execution data, wherein validating the task execution data comprises determining the task execution data satisfies at least one of: (i) a data format, (ii) a data quality, or (iii) a data consistency. Divesh [0046[ teaches of validation of the server configuration template, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expand that to include the type of data that needs to be validated, such as demonstrated by Aswathanarayana [0027], thus applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 5, the combination of Divesh, Li and Aswathanarayana further teach:
The computing system of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise: based on validating the task execution data, determining a status of the user request query, wherein the status is associated with an approval workflow. (Aswathanarayana [0027])
As per claim 17, it is the method variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is the method variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divesh and Li, and in view of Tripathy et al (US 20210365935, hereinafter Tripathy).
As per claim 7, the combination of Divesh and Li did not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 6, wherein the product or service are associated with a financial product or financial service.
However, Tripathy teaches:
The computing system of claim 6, wherein the product or service are associated with a financial product or financial service. (Tripathy [0016])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tripathy into that of Divesh and Li in order to have the product or service are associated with a financial product or financial service. The claimed financial service or product are merely intended use of the claimed product and service, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 7, the combination of Divesh and Li did not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: accessing data indicative of one or more previous user request queries, wherein the previous user request queries are associated with one or more previously executed tasks; and computing, based on the previously executed tasks and the one or more executable tasks, at least one incomplete executable task.
However, Tripathy teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: accessing data indicative of one or more previous user request queries, wherein the previous user request queries are associated with one or more previously executed tasks; and computing, based on the previously executed tasks and the one or more executable tasks, at least one incomplete executable task. (Tripathy [0099])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tripathy into that of Divesh and Li in order to have the data indicative of one or more previous user request queries, wherein the previous user request queries are associated with one or more previously executed tasks; and computing, based on the previously executed tasks and the one or more executable tasks, at least one incomplete executable task. Tripathy figure 4 teaches doing such verification can ensure task scheduling efficiency, and the combination of references would enhance the overall appeals of all references and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 9, the combination of Divesh, Li and Tripathy further teach:
The computing system of claim 8, wherein computing the at least one incomplete executable task comprises determining one or more duplicate executable tasks. (Tripathy [0099])
Claim(s) 10 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divesh and Li, and in view of Jaladeen et al (US 20130332123, hereinafter Jaladeen).
As per claim 10, the combination of Divesh and Li did not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the computing instructions comprise one or more nested computing instructions, the one or more nested computing instructions indicative of at least two types of contextual information.
However, Jaladeen teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the computing instructions comprise one or more nested computing instructions, the one or more nested computing instructions indicative of at least two types of contextual information. (Jaladeen [0027] – [0028])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jaladeen into that of Divesh and Li in order to have the computing instructions comprise one or more nested computing instructions, the one or more nested computing instructions indicative of at least two types of contextual information. Jaladeen [0027] – [0028] has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and used arrangement for requirements and constraints information, and applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 11, the combination of Divesh, Li and Jaladeen further teach:
The computing system of claim 10, wherein the one or more nested computing instructions consolidate at least one executable task common across the at least two types of contextual information. (Jaladeen [0027] – [0028])
Claim(s) 12 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divesh and Li, and in view of Khaitan et al (US 20230281097, hereinafter Khaitan).
As per claim 12, the combination of Divesh and Li did not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on the user request query, determining a plurality of types of contextual information; and in response to determining the plurality of types of contextual information, programmatically generating the computing instructions, wherein the computing instructions synthesizes a set of non-duplicative executable tasks across the plurality of types of contextual information.
However, Khaitan teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on the user request query, determining a plurality of types of contextual information; and in response to determining the plurality of types of contextual information, programmatically generating the computing instructions, wherein the computing instructions synthesizes a set of non-duplicative executable tasks across the plurality of types of contextual information. (Khaitan [0027] - [0028])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khaitan into that of Divesh and Li in order to determine a plurality of types of contextual information; and in response to determining the plurality of types of contextual information, programmatically generating the computing instructions, wherein the computing instructions synthesizes a set of non-duplicative executable tasks across the plurality of types of contextual information. Khaitan [0027] – [0028] has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and used arrangement for requirements and constraints information, and applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 13, the combination of Divesh and Khaitan further teach:
The computing system of claim 12, wherein programmatically generating the computing instructions comprises: computing, a correlation between at least a first type of contextual information, a second type of contextual information, and respective parameters; based on the correlation, determining additional or duplicative executable tasks between the first type of contextual information, the second type of contextual information, and the respective parameters; and generating the computing instructions in accordance with the respective parameters. (Khaitan [0027] - [0028])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights