CTNF 18/756,736 CTNF 88079 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 1. This initial office action is based on the application filed on 06/27/2024, which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Status of Claim 2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 12 and 20 are presented in independent form. Priority 02-27 AIA 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 2024103831227 , filed on 03/29/2024 . Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner Notes 5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Abstract Objection 6. Line 1 and line 10 of Abstract recite “Embodiments of the present disclosure…” 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 7. Claim s 9, 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “an editing interface” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation “processing unit" in lines 2-4, should be changed to – hardware processor processing unit --. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the processor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-19 depend on claim 12 are also objected . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 8. 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 analysis specific to Claims 1, 12 and 20 is being presented below. Claims 1, 12 and 20: Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1-11 of the instant application is direct to process. Claims 12-19 of the instant application is direct to apparatus. Claim 20 of the instant application is direct to product. Thus, they are statutory categories. Step 2 Analysis: Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite: (a) obtaining configuration information for creating an application, the configuration information indicating a plurality of processing entities, the plurality of processing entities comprising a first processing entity and a set of second processing entities associated with the first processing entity, the configuration information comprising description information related to the set of second processing entities, the first processing entity being configured to determine whether to switch to a particular second processing entity of the set of second processing entities to process a request based on the description information of each second processing entity of the set of second processing entities, the description information of each second processing entity indicating one or more of an applicable scenario or a function of the second processing entity; (b) creating a target application based on the configuration information. Step 2A -- Prong 1: The claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitations of: (a) obtaining configuration information for creating an application, the configuration information indicating a plurality of processing entities, the plurality of processing entities comprising a first processing entity and a set of second processing entities associated with the first processing entity, the configuration information comprising description information related to the set of second processing entities, the first processing entity being configured to determine whether to switch to a particular second processing entity of the set of second processing entities to process a request based on the description information of each second processing entity of the set of second processing entities, the description information of each second processing entity indicating one or more of an applicable scenario or a function of the second processing entity. Limitation (a) limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” and “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A -- Prong 2: The claim 12 recites the additional limitations of “An electronic device”, “at least one processing unit”. The limitations of “An electronic device”, “at least one processing unit” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites the additional limitations of “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor” The limitations of “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitation (b) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. Accordingly, 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. Step 2B: As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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 same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claims are ineligible. Dependent claims Additionally, claims 2 and 13 recite the limitation “creating a node connection graph via an editing interface, the node connection graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node corresponding to a respective processing entity of the plurality of processing entities, the plurality of nodes comprising a first node corresponding to the first processing entity and a set of second nodes corresponding to the set of second processing entities, and the node connection graph comprising one or more connections between the first node and corresponding second nodes of the set of second nodes, each connection indicating an association relationship between the first processing entity and the corresponding second entity” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. The limitation “determining the configuration information based on the node connection graph” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2 and 13 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 3 and 14 recites “receiving a set of editing operations via the editing interface to create the node connection graph, wherein the set of editing operations comprises at least one of the following: adding a new node to the node connection graph; deleting an existing node in the node connection graph; editing a property of a node in the node connection graph; or modifying a connection relationship of a node in the node connection graph” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 3 and 14 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 4 and 15 recite “wherein the first node is a starting node in the node connection graph” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 5 and 16 recite the limitation “presenting a configuration interface related to a second processing entity” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The limitation “obtaining the description information related to the second processing entity via the configuration interface” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein the description information comprises a text content input via the configuration interface” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 7 and 18 recite “creating a set of jump plug-ins of the first processing entity based on the description information of the set of second processing entities, such that the first processing entity is configured to selectively switch to a corresponding second processing entity by invoking the jump plug-in” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 7 and 18 are ineligible. Additionally, claims 8 and 19 recite “wherein the configuration information comprises global jump information indicating that at least one other processing entity other than a third processing entity among the plurality of processing entities is configured to selectively switch to the third processing entity to process a request under a target condition” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of exchanging data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 8 and 19 are ineligible. Additionally, claim 9 recites “creating a global jump node corresponding to the global jump information in an editing interface” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 10 recites the limitation “in response to the target application receiving a target request to be processed, providing the request to the first processing entity by the target application; determining, by the first processing entity, a target processing entity for processing the target request from the set of second processing entities based on the description information of the set of second processing entities” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “providing” and “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The limitation “switching to the target processing entity to process the target request by the target application” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 11 recites “in response to completing the target request processing, switching back to the first processing entity to process a subsequently received request by the target application” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating or outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim (s) 1, 5-7, 10-12, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClory et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0321918 A1 – herein after McClory) in view of Hess et al. (US Patent No. 11307852 B1 – herein after Hess) . Regarding claim 1. Mcclory discloses A method for creating an application (method, and/or computer program product embodiments for creating and managing a software application – See Abstract), comprising: obtaining configuration information for creating an application (transmit the application creation configuration information to the AADDOMA 162 – See paragraph [0028]. Create , orchestrate, and manage applications and associated components (e.g., data stores, cluster nodes, APIs, etc.) based on application creation configuration information received from application developers – See paragraph [0065]), the configuration information indicating a plurality of processing entities (create, orchestrate, and manage applications and associated components (e.g., data stores, cluster nodes, APIs, etc.) based on application creation configuration information received from application developers ; (2) determine application requirements information and application cost information; and/or (3) provide notifications to organizations for applications approval and/or changes prior to deployment of the application – See paragraph [0065]), the plurality of processing entities comprising a first processing entity ( provide organizations with the ability to control the cost of creating, deploying, and/or managing applications in the AADDOMS 100 – See paragraphs [0080-0081]. An organization may be partitioned into departments or groups including group preferences – See paragraph [0144]) and a set of second processing entities associated with the first processing entity (the application development system 102 may be representative of an example system of individuals, corporations, organizations or other entities for the development of applications hosted by the infrastructure services provider systems – See paragraph [0024-0028]. An organization may be partitioned into departments or groups including group preferences. For example, different customer-facing applications may be managed by different groups within the organization , such as an application targeting home buyers and another application targeting real estate professionals – See paragraph [0144]) , the configuration information comprising description information related to the set of second processing entities (the application creation configuration information may be determined using just a few pieces of data, which can be obtained from the application developer by asking simple questions, such as software architecture information of the application and the development stack information associated with the application – See paragraph [0028]. Requirements information. The capacity management component 318-3 may be configured to predict the amount of computing resources required for a future time period based on the utilization of computing resources by all applications in a past time period – See paragraphs [0110-0111]), [[the first processing entity being configured to determine whether to switch to a particular second processing entity of the set of second processing entities to process a request based on the description information of each second processing entity of the set of second processing entities, the description information of each second processing entity indicating one or more of an applicable scenario or a function of the second processing entity]]; and creating a target application based on the configuration information (A build of the application source code information may then be initiated to generate the software application – See Abstract. The AADDOMA 162 may receive application creation configuration information from the one or development devices 104. And in response, the AADDOMA 162 may create, build, test, and deploy one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 to a designated infrastructure services provider system – See paragraph [0028]. Create and deploy an application, the application creation configuration information used by AADDOMA 162 may include API configuration information for each service that contains information required to connect to and invoke the service as further discussed with respect FIG. 6 – See paragraph [0042]). McClory does not disclose the first processing entity being configured to determine whether to switch to a particular second processing entity of the set of second processing entities to process a request based on the description information of each second processing entity of the set of second processing entities, the description information of each second processing entity indicating one or more of an applicable scenario or a function of the second processing entity. Hess discloses the first processing entity (the first module – See col. 9, lines 25-30) being configured to determine whether to switch to a particular second processing entity of the set of second processing entities (receives an output dataset from the first module , then the module management system 102 may determine that the plurality of mappings indicate that the output of the first module is mapped to the input of the second module, and in response, redirect (switch) the output dataset from the first module to the input of the second module – See col. 9, lines 25-30) to process a request based on the description information of each second processing entity of the set of second processing entities (the module management component 510a may be configured to cause each of the subset of modules 126 to re-generate the output dataset of the respective output requirement of the plurality of output requirements based on the input dataset of the respective input requirement of the plurality of input requirements – See column 15, lines 30-35), the description information of each second processing entity indicating one or more of an applicable scenario or a function of the second processing entity (determine a capability to generate the output dataset of a respective output requirement of the plurality of output requirements based on the input dataset of a respective input requirement of the plurality of input requirements, and send a message to the processing device indicative of the capability – See col. 16, lines 13-19). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Hess’ teaching into McClory’s invention because incorporating Hess’ teaching would enhance McClory to enable determine whether the module that has a capability to generate an output dataset of a particular output requirement based on the input dataset as suggested by Hess (col. 18, lines 18-29). Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, Mcclory discloses wherein obtaining configuration information comprises (application source code information may be generated based on the application creation configuration information – See paragraph [0005]): presenting a configuration interface related to a second processing entity (the application creation configuration information used by AADDOMA 162 may include API configuration information for each service that contains information required to connect to and invoke the service as further discussed with respect FIG. 6 – See paragraph [0042]. Queries for application-specific configuration information may be dynamically generated based on the retrieved developer configuration information – See paragraphs [0144-0146]); and obtaining the description information related to the second processing entity via the configuration interface (receive application requirements information generated and provided by the application orchestration component – See paragraph [0110]). Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5, McClory discloses wherein the description information comprises a text content input via the configuration interface (receive application creation configuration information from the one or development devices 104. And in response, the AADDOMA 162 may create, build, test, and deploy one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 to a designated infrastructure services provider system such as infrastructure services provider system 116-1. In an embodiment, the application creation configuration information may be determined using just a few pieces of data, which can be obtained from the application developer by asking simple questions , such as software architecture information of the application and the development stack information associated with the application – See paragraph [0028]). Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, further comprising: Hess discloses creating a set of jump plug-ins of the first processing entity based on the description information of the set of second processing entities (the module management system may use one or more of the plurality of connections to redirect (jump) the first output dataset to a second module of the plurality of modules to cause the second module to generate a second output dataset based on the first output dataset – See col. 2, lines 38-43), such that the first processing entity is configured to selectively switch to a corresponding second processing entity by invoking the jump plug-in (he module management system 102 may be configured to redirect (jump)(shown in FIG. 1 as, “Redirected Module Output Data”) the output dataset that it receives from each module 126 to the inputs of one or more of the other modules 126 based on the plurality of mappings (sometimes referred to as, plurality of connections). In response, redirect the output dataset from the first module to the input of the second module… select the output dataset that should be redirected based on the availability of the dataset – See column 9, lines 15-56. Examiner respectfully notes that the redirected connections are as a set of jump plugins). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Hess’ teaching into McClory’s invention because incorporating Hess’ teaching would enhance McClory to select the output dataset that should be redirected based on the availability of the dataset as suggested by Hess (col. 9, lines 34-40). Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1, further comprising: McClory discloses in response to the target application receiving a target request to be processed, providing the request to the first processing entity by the target application (the routing and distribution of incoming requests may be further determined based on the availability, computational load, and/or network load of the server devices. Additionally or alternatively, the routing and distribution of incoming requests may also be determined based on responsiveness of the one or more applications 136 and 138 – See paragraphs [0034-0035]); determining, by the first processing entity, a target processing entity for processing the target request from the set of second processing entities based on the description information of the set of second processing entities (determine the application resource information which may include, without limitation, the number of cluster nodes required for an application, and the number of container instances to be hosted by the cluster nodes for the application. The application orchestration component 312-1 may also be generally configured to provide the application resource information and application creation configuration information to the application cost component 312-8 to determine application cost information– See paragraph [0070]); and McClory does not disclose switching to the target processing entity to process the target request by the target application. Hess discloses switching to the target processing entity to process the target request by the target application (In response to receiving the request, each of the computing systems 124 may generate a list of module identifiers corresponding to the one or more modules 126 – See col. 7, lines 13-21. The module management component 510a may be configured to redirect (switch), responsive to determining the compliance of the second output dataset to the input requirements of the second module 126, the third output dataset to the second module 126 of the plurality of modules 126 – See col. 15, lines 62-67). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Hess’ teaching into McClory’s invention because incorporating Hess’ teaching would enhance McClory to enable redirect, responsive to determining the compliance of the second output dataset to the input requirements as suggested by Hess (col. 15, lines 62-67). Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 10, further comprising: Hess discloses in response to completing the target request processing, switching back to the first processing entity to process a subsequently received request by the target application ( redirects (switch) the output data from a first module 426 to an input of the second module 426 based on an execution order or a plurality of mappings associated with modules 426. In some embodiments, the module management system 102 determines the execution order or the plurality of mappings for the modules 426 based on the plurality of input requirements associated with modules 426 and/or the plurality of output requirements associated with modules– See column 13, lines 12-20 and Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Hess’ teaching into McClory’s invention because incorporating Hess’ teaching would enhance McClory to enable to redirect to the first module based on execution orders as suggested by Hess (column 13, lines 12-20). Regarding claim 12. An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, in response to the instructions being executed by the at least one processing unit, the processor causing the electronic device to perform a method for creating an application comprising: Regarding claim 12, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above. Regarding claim 16, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above. Regarding claim 17, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above. Regarding claim 18, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 7 above. Regarding claim 20. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program is executable by a processor to implement a method for creating an application comprising: Regarding claim 20, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above . 07-22-aia AIA 10. Claim (s) 2-4 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClory and Hess as applied to claim s 1, 11 and 20 respectively above, and further in view of Duggal et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0409290 A1 – herein after Duggal) . Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, Duggal discloses wherein obtaining configuration information (the object files may be linked with other object files of other features during the software build according to the configuration of each feature to provide executable code for the application – See paragraphs [0072-0074]) comprises: creating a node connection graph via an editing interface (creating a graph or graph database that involves a computer system that is configured to collect discrete information as defined nodes and edges as part of this process – See paragraph [0101]), the node connection graph comprising a plurality of nodes (creates, stores, and updates the graph database including the nodes and edges as per the defined characteristics of the nodes and edges – See paragraph [0104]), each node corresponding to a respective processing entity of the plurality of processing entities (the graph database stores nodes and edges that represent corresponding entities and relationships between entities – See paragraph [0110]), the plurality of nodes comprising a first node corresponding to the first processing entity (the graph data structures comprising a plurality of different types of nodes representing entities and the node types comprising template, feature, and other node types such as developer or problem and each node type having a set of defined attributes, and different types of edges that represent interrelationship between entities – See paragraphs [0101-0112]) and a set of second nodes corresponding to the set of second processing entities (The configured graph database incorporates nodes and entities from different processes or aspects of the platform which allows for interrogation and discovery of interrelationship and potential associations from paths containing connected nodes and edges across the different tasks, processes, or relevance – See paragraph [0116]), and the node connection graph comprising one or more connections between the first node and corresponding second nodes of the set of second nodes (identify different paths starting from a node through its connected edges to other directly connected nodes – See paragraph [0014]), each connection indicating an association relationship between the first processing entity and the corresponding second entity (generate different node embeddings that are adapted for different desired services, clients, or applications – See paragraphs [0143-0045]); and determining the configuration information based on the node connection graph (each application or service in production has a configuration file in the form of a Json file: the Json have two entries, the first entry is the algorithm name (e.g., Metapath2Vec) the second entry is itself a json that specifies the hyperparameters of the algorithms (e.g., metapath_dict, window_size, etc.). Verify that the required data for the embedding generation changed and preferably only in this case run the embedding generation and upload the resulting embedding to memory thus replaces the old embedding for this particular configuration. – See paragraphs [0143-0144]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Duggal’s teaching into McClory’s and Hess’ inventions because incorporating Duggal’s teaching would enhance McClory and Hess to enable to addition, subtraction, editing, or reordering of features or the editing of connections between the features.as suggested by Duggal (paragraph [0065]). Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Duggal discloses wherein creating a node connection graph via an editing interface (creating a graph or graph database that involves a computer system that is configured to collect discrete information as defined nodes and edges as part of this process – See paragraph [0101]) comprises: receiving a set of editing operations via the editing interface to create the node connection graph (customizing by enabling the addition, subtraction, editing, or reordering of features or the editing of connections between the features – See paragraph [0065]), wherein the set of editing operations (add/remove/edit features and their connections – See paragraphs [0095-0098]) comprises at least one of the following: adding a new node to the node connection graph; deleting an existing node in the node connection graph; editing a property of a node in the node connection graph (receive a set of features, identify new or additional features from the library that may be required by the selection of features, automatically generate connections between the features of the set based on rules from the rules database and the attributes of each feature, and provide an editable visualization of the set of interconnected features or integrated build card – See paragraph [0081]); or modifying a connection relationship of a node in the node connection graph (arranges the features of the integrated build card and populates their display and interactive regions according to the edited attributes and rules to provide an operable visual interactive simulation demonstrating a functional prototype of the desired application – See paragraphs [0095-0097]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Duggal’s teaching into McClory’s and Hess’ inventions because incorporating Duggal’s teaching would enhance McClory and Hess to enable to arrange the features of the integrated build card and populates their display and interactive regions according to the edited attributes and rules to provide an operable visual interactive simulation demonstrating a functional prototype of the desired application.as suggested by Duggal (paragraphs [0095-0097]). Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 2, Duggal discloses wherein the first node is a starting node in the node connection graph (the algorithm can traverse the knowledge graph to identify different paths starting from a node through its connected edges to other directly connected nodes – See paragraph [0114]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Duggal’s teaching into McClory’s and Hess’ inventions because incorporating Duggal’s teaching would enhance McClory and Hess to enable to traverse the knowledge graph to identify different paths starting from a node through its connected edges to other directly connected nodes as suggested by Duggal (paragraph [0114]). Regarding claim 13, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above. Regarding claim 14, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above. Regarding claim 15, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above . 07-22-aia AIA 11. Claim (s) 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClory and Hess as applied to claim s 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0303291 A1 – herein after Zhao) . Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, Zhao discloses wherein the configuration information comprises global jump information indicating that at least one other processing entity other than a third processing entity among the plurality of processing entities is configured to selectively switch to the third processing entity to process a request under a target condition (rather than displaying a global graph, the key function routes to reach a property or event can be illustrated as a path through multiple user interfaces that are linked with page jumps. The skeleton level 820 can include nodes that are page nodes, core elements, core semantic elements, action scope objects, and/or events to jump to another page. Property nodes can be captured at the properties level 816 and event nodes can be captured at the event level 818. Key nodes of the global graph can be kept while non-key nodes can be removed for a current queried level – See paragraphs [0045-0046]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Zhao’s teaching into McClory’s and Hess’ inventions because incorporating Zhao’s teaching would enhance McClory and Hess to enable to displaying a global graph, the key function routes to reach a property or event can be illustrated as a path through multiple user interfaces that are linked with page jumps as suggested by Zhao (paragraphs [0045-0046]). Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, further comprising: Zhao discloses creating a global jump node corresponding to the global jump information in an editing interface (Global graph creation can include components or modules, such as module 418 to build up the global graph 402 with correlations among elements across one or more local graphs 404. The create page node 406 can create a higher-level user interface node – See paragraph [0037]. Indicate a number of related nodes on a same graph level as a node under analysis. Jumping connections 724 can identify one or more links to other pages or user interfaces – See paragraphs [0043-0044]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Zhao’s teaching into McClory’s and Hess’ inventions because incorporating Zhao’s teaching would enhance McClory and Hess to enable to build up the global graph with correlations among elements across one or more local graphs as suggested by Zhao (paragraphs [0043-0044]). Regarding claim 19, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 8 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bouley et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0123830 A1) discloses the user-generated input configures a solution service to generate solution data by one or more capabilities, the user-generated input selecting the one or more capabilities at the computational platform, and generating, by the packaging service, a configuration package comprising one or more configurations associated with the selected one or more capabilities – See Abstract and specification for more details. Farrell et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0293557 A1) discloses a connection between a first node and a second node in the one or more nodes representing an association between a first entity represented by the first node and a second entity represented by the second node; determining the first entity is unoptimized; and determining a set of related entities for the unoptimized first entity in the graph model, the graph model having at least one common entity with a corresponding label model – See Abstract and specification for more details. Sisson et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0403300 A1) discloses accessing the entity database to retrieve particular attributes of the particular entity and querying the entity database to receive a result set of matching entities as the current peer group of other entities for the particular entity based on the particular attributes of the particular entity and the matching rules. The method further includes appending data for the matching entities in the result set to a peer group data structure associated with the particular entity – See Abstract and specification for more details. Mo et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0296034 A1) discloses building an initial resource dependency graph; building a second resource dependency graph; determining a resulting resource dependency graph to identify dangling resources; and removing the dangling resources. In an embodiment, building at least one of the initial resource dependency graph or the second resource dependency graph includes building a resource ownership graph and extending the resource ownership graph to include associations to form a resource dependency graph – See Abstract and specification for more details. Wan et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0086361 A1) discloses collect a plurality of performance metrics measured when performing the automatic performance test and determine a performance score based on the plurality of performance metrics. Responsive to detecting the performance score is below a predefined performance threshold, the method can cause the CI/CD pipeline to reject the software update to the software application – See Abstract and specification for more details. Warfield et al. (US Pub. No. 11474814 B1) discloses generating modular configuration data based at least in part on at least one of the per-application configuration data, the per-client configuration data, and the per-application per-client configuration data; generating a releasable software application based at least in part on the modular configuration data; and performing one or more software release operations by transmitting the releasable software application to the client system – See Abstract and specification for more details. Duggal et al. (US Pub. No. 20240394053 A1) discloses receiving one or more inputs from a customer to develop the application and determining one or more service providers required for the application development based on the received one or more inputs. The method further includes creating a customer account for the determined one or more service providers and integrating the one or more services to the application under development using the customer account – See Abstract and specification for more details. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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. /MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 2 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 3 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 4 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 5 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 6 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 7 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 8 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 9 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 10 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 11 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 12 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 13 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 14 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 15 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 16 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 17 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 18 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 19 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 20 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 21 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 22 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 23 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 24 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 25 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 26 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 27 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 28 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 29 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 30 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/756,736 Page 31 Art Unit: 2192
Prosecution Insights