DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21 are pending in this 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 .
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0106021) [hereinafter “Verma ‘021”] in view of Ureche et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0095576) [hereinafter “Ureche”].
As per claim 1, Verma ‘021 teaches a method comprising: maintaining, via a computing system implemented using a database system, a database storing metadata describing a plurality of features associated with the computing system ([0055], storing user parameters in an enterprise database that pertain to features to be rolled out in the future), the metadata being processable to cause the features to be rendered in a plurality of different user experiences ([0053]-[0055], various data like roll out time periods and opt in data that cause selected features to be rolled out to an enterprise user); causing, using the metadata, a user interface to be displayed on a device of an authorized administrator, the user interface being associated with a first one of the different user experiences ([0053], upcoming features and related data including time period and opt in data, displayed to administrator on a UI), the user interface configurable to allow the authorized administrator to enable a plurality of sets of features on behalf of the organization ([0053], administrator can select which upcoming features to rollout); receiving, from the authorized administrator via the user interface, a request to enable a first set of features from the plurality of sets of features ([0053], administrator selecting features to be subsequently rolled out); and causing, based on the request, the first set of features to be enabled for users associated with the organization ([0054], features made available to enterprise users).
Verma does not explicitly teach automatically causing related features to be included in a setup provided to an authorized administrator affiliated with an organization implementing the computing system based on attributes of the organization, usage patterns of users affiliated with the organization, and/or one or more target markets for business of the organization. Ureche teaches automatically causing related features to be included in a setup provided to an authorized administrator affiliated with an organization implementing the computing system ([0003], giving administrator ability to manage computer functions of a computer system in the organization) based on attributes of the organization ([0005], functions are displayed based on policies of the organization which is interpreted to be an attribute), usage patterns of users affiliated with the organization (Examiner Note: this feature is an optional feature however a potential citation will be provided to expedite prosecution – [0003], restrictions based on past or potential data leaks by users), and/or one or more target markets for business of the organization (Examiner Note: this feature is an optional feature and would likely overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Verma with the teachings of Ureche, automatically causing related features to be included in a setup provided to an authorized administrator affiliated with an organization implementing the computing system based on attributes of the organization, usage patterns of users affiliated with the organization, and/or one or more target markets for business of the organization, to tailor the customer experience with the most relevant features and information.
As per claim 2, the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata corresponding to a particular feature includes capabilities ([0027], feature parameters will include capability type of the new feature), customization options (Verma ‘021; [0025] and [0101], users can customize whether and when to receive a particular feature), licensing information ([0026], licensing information related to application with features), and status of the particular feature ([0027], status of feature may be listed as problematic).
As per claim 4, the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing rendering of, in association with the plurality of sets of features, usage information associated with the plurality of sets of features (Verma ‘021; Abstract, displaying enrollment information regarding features including user opt-in data) see also (Verma ‘021; [0026], past issues and rollouts).
As per claim 5, the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user experiences include a web application (Verma ‘021; [0043], home page of GUI screen for displaying feature and rollout information), a native mobile application (Examiner Note: the other features are interpreted as optional since “and/or” is interpreted as “or”. The current rejection may be overcome if one or more of them are included as a required feature), a hybrid application, and/or a Large Language Model (LLM) chat interface (Examiner Note: the other features are interpreted as optional since “and/or” is interpreted as “or”. The current rejection may be overcome if one or more of them are included as a required feature).
As per claim 8, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 9, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma ‘021 and Ureche in view of Verma et al. (US PGPUB No. 2024/0176609) [hereinafter “Verma ‘609”].
As per claim 3, the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche teaches the method of claim 2.
The combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche does not explicitly teach wherein the metadata describes dependencies of the particular feature with respect to other features. Verma ‘609 teaches wherein the metadata describes dependencies of the particular feature with respect to other features (Abstract, metadata regarding the dependency of a first feature on a second feature used to make deployment decisions).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Verma ‘021 and Ureche with the teachings of Verma ‘609, wherein the metadata describes dependencies of the particular feature with respect to other features, to include determine the most appropriate time for deployment of newly developed features.
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma ‘021 and Ureche in view of Singh (US PGPUB No. 2023/0185864).
As per claim 7, the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche does not explicitly teach automatically recommending and explaining, via an LLM chat interface, features to the authorized administrator based on data associated with the organization. Singh teaches automatically recommending and explaining, via an LLM chat interface, features to the authorized administrator based on data associated with the organization ([0035], making recommendations via an LLM to an administrator regarding configuration of a software application using organization policy data see [0036]) see also ([0022], configurations include traits and security features of software).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Verma ‘021 and Ureche with the teachings of Singh, automatically recommending and explaining, via an LLM chat interface, features to the authorized administrator based on data associated with the organization, to include determine the most appropriate time for deployment of newly developed features.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, a new prior art reference Ureche, has been introduced and cited to.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maguire et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0080116), Parks, III et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0233733), Pan et al. (US PGPUB No. 2016/0149851), Stănică et al. ("Management software for a publishing company," 2019 11th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Pitesti, Romania, 2019, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/ECAI46879.2019.9042014), Huberman et al. ("A generic forms handling tool and its application to network trouble management," IEEE International Conference on Communications, World Prosperity Through Communications,, Boston, MA, USA, 1989, pp. 1170-1176 vol.3, doi: 10.1109/ICC.1989.49867) and Triveño-Villafuerte et al. ("Web Application for use in Companies in the Internal Training Process of their Personnel," 2023 4th International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC), Coimbatore, India, 2023, pp. 700-707, doi: 10.1109/ICESC57686.2023.10193380) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including using metadata and machine learning to determine optimal parameters for application feature rollout.
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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 February 18, 2026