Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claims 1, 11 and 18 recites: “performing, by a processing device, a negative match to identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and preventing the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.”. It is not clear how the negative matching is performed and what is kept and what is removed of the user objects. The claim as written now implies that all user objects may be removed from the first and the second groups. As a result, if this is the case all first user objects and all second user objects may be prevented from entering the first user path. This renders the claim indefinite regarding preventing user objects from entering the first user path. Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims, 1, 11 and 18.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 12,108,487 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claim 1 of the current application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 12,108,487 B2, by removing the limitations of: “the first user path comprising a second edge and a second subsequent node; generating a third group comprising the first set of remaining user objects and the second set of remaining user objects; processing, in response to forming the third group, each user object of the third group to: place each user object at the entry node of the first user path; create a first active checkpoint for each user object at the entry node; advance each user object from the entry node to the first subsequent node of the first user path; and create a subsequent checkpoint for each user object at the first subsequent node; and completing a task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint” as claimed in claim 1 of US. Patent No. 12,108,487 B2. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Below is a comparison between the claims of the current application (Patent Application No. 18/733,808) and US. Patent No. 12,108,487 B2.
Application No. 18/899,896
Patent No. 12,108,487 B2
Claims 1
A method comprising: identifying a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path comprising a first edge and a first subsequent node, the first subsequent node comprising a condition block indicating whether a respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge; locating active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; generating a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; performing, by a processing device, a negative match to identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and preventing the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.
Claim 1
A method comprising: identifying a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path, the first group of user objects having a first attribute, each user object being associated with a user device of a user, the first user path comprising a first edge, a second edge, an entry node, a first subsequent node, and a second subsequent node, each node comprising a condition block, a content block, and an action block, the condition block of the first subsequent node indicating whether respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge or the second edge; locating active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; forming a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; performing, with a processing device, a negative match with a second attribute to; remove a first user object from the first group that matches the second attribute to keep a first set of remaining user objects in the first group; prevent the first user object from entering the first user path; remove a second user object from the second group that matches the second attribute to keep a second set of remaining user objects in the second group; and prevent the second user object from entering the first user path; generating a third group comprising the first set of remaining user objects and the second set of remaining user objects; processing, in response to forming the third group, each user object of the third group to: place each user object at the entry node of the first user path; create a first active checkpoint for each user object at the entry node; advance each user object from the entry node to the first subsequent node of the first user path; and create a subsequent checkpoint for each user object at the first subsequent node; and completing a task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint.
Claim 2, 12 & 19
locating expired checkpoints within the other user paths with each expired checkpoint having a user object associated therewith to form a fourth group of user objects associated with the expired checkpoints; and processing each user object associated with the expired checkpoints by advancing the user object along false edges or removing the user object from the respective user path in response to locating the expired checkpoints.
Claim 2
locating expired checkpoints within the other user paths with each expired checkpoint having a user object associated therewith to form a fourth group of user objects associated with the expired checkpoints; and processing each user object associated with the expired checkpoints by advancing the user object along false edges or removing the user object from the respective user path in response to locating expired checkpoints.
Claim 3, 13 & 20
locating user objects that match exit rules for a respective user path; and removing user objects that match exit rules for the respective user path in response to locating the user objects matching exit rules.
Claim 3
locating user objects that match exit rules for a respective user path; and removing user objects that match exit rules for the respective user path in response to locating the user objects matching exit rules.
Claim 4 and 14
wherein the first user path further comprises a first subsequent node, and further comprising: attempting to match each user object with a respective ruleset of the first subsequent node; and advancing each user object along at least one true edge to a second subsequent node in response to matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 4
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises: attempting to match each user object with a respective ruleset of the first subsequent node; and advancing each user object along at least one true edge to the second subsequent node in response to matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 5
advancing each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 5
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises advancing each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 6
wherein the first user path further comprises a content block and an action block.
Claim 1
the first user path comprising a first edge, a second edge, an entry node, a first subsequent node, and a second subsequent node, each node comprising a condition block, a content block, and an action block
Claim 7
completing an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 6
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises completing an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset
Claims 8
wherein completing the entry record for the first user path is in response to no false edges extending from the first subsequent node.
Claim 7
wherein completing the entry record for the first user path is in response to no false edges extending from the first subsequent node.
Claims 9 and 16
following a processing condition of a first subsequent checkpoint in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 8
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises following a processing condition of the first subsequent checkpoint in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset
Claim 10 and 17
wherein following the processing condition of the active checkpoint comprises snoozing the first subsequent checkpoint for a period of time defined by the processing condition.
Claim 9
wherein following the processing condition of the active checkpoint comprises snoozing the first subsequent checkpoint for a period of time defined by the processing condition.
Claim 11
A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: identify a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path comprising a first edge and a first subsequent node, the first subsequent node comprising a condition block indicating whether a respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge; locate active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; generating a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; performing a negative match to: identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and prevent the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.
Claim 10
A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: identify a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path, the first group of user objects having a first attribute, each user object being associated with a user device, the first user path comprising a first edge, a second edge, an entry node, a first subsequent node, and a second subsequent node, each node comprising a condition block, a content block, and an action block, the condition block of the first subsequent node indicating whether respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge or the second edge; locate active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; form a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; perform a negative match with a second attribute to: remove a first user object from the first group that match the second attribute to keep a first set of remaining user objects in the first group; prevent the first user object from entering the first user path; remove a second user object from the second group that match the second attribute to keep a second set of remaining user objects in the second group; and prevent the second user object from entering the first user path; generate a third group comprising the first set of remaining user objects and the second set of remaining user objects; process, in response to forming the third group, each user object of the third group to: place each user object at the entry node of the first user path; create a first active checkpoint for each user object at the entry node; advance each user object from the entry node to the first subsequent node of the first user path; and create a subsequent checkpoint for each user object at the first subsequent node; and complete a task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint.
Claim 15
wherein the processing device is further to: advance each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset; or complete an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
Claim 5 & 6
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises advancing each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset.
wherein completing the task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint comprises completing an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: identify a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path comprising a first edge and a first subsequent node, the first subsequent node comprising a condition block indicating whether a respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge; locate active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; generate a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; perform a negative match to: identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and prevent the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.
Claim 17
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: identify a first group of user objects that are absent from a first user path, the first group of user objects having a first attribute, each user object being associated with a user device, the first user path comprising a first edge, a second edge, an entry node, a first subsequent node, and a second subsequent node, each node comprising a condition block, a content block, and an action block, the condition block of the first subsequent node indicating whether respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge or the second edge; locate active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith; form a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; perform a negative match with a second attribute to: remove a first user object from the first group that match the second attribute to keep a first set of remaining user objects in the first group; prevent the first user object from entering the first user path; remove a second user object from the second group that match the second attribute to keep a second set of remaining user objects in the second group; and prevent the second user object from entering the first user path; generate a third group comprising the first set of remaining user objects and the second set of remaining user objects; process, in response to forming the third group, each user object of the third group to: place each user object at the entry node of the first user path; create a first active checkpoint for each user object at the entry node; advance each user object from the entry node to the first subsequent node of the first user path; and create a subsequent checkpoint for each user object at the first subsequent node; and complete a task associated with the first subsequent checkpoint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigeant et al. (US. Pub. No. 2017/0300864 A1) in view of Ghoneimy et al. (US. Pub. No. 2004/0078373 A1) and further in view of Sharma et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0327559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vigeant discloses a method comprising: identifying a first group of user objects (See Par. [27], [36]-[37], [40] and Fig. 3 of Vigeant for a reference to that based on a received request identifying a set [group] of jobs associated with a first set of attributes [Job qualifications attributes]);
locating active checkpoints within other user paths with each active checkpoint having a user object associated therewith(See Par. [41], [52]-[53] of Vigeant for a reference to determining the location of the user active record [DB record is mapped to active checkpoint] associated with the first attribute on which the user request’s jobs are grouped);
Vigeant does not explicitly disclose that are absent from a first user path comprising a first edge and a first subsequent node, the first subsequent node comprising a condition block indicating whether a respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge; generating a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths; performing, by a processing device, a negative match to identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and preventing the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.
However, Ghoneimy discloses that are absent from a first user path comprising a first edge and a first subsequent node, the first subsequent node comprising a condition block indicating whether a respective user object advances within the first user path from the first subsequent node along the first edge (See Par. [71]-[72] and Fig. 10 of Ghoneimy for a reference to Universal Activity List that the workflow engine identifies, via its Universal (To-Do) Activity List and per-process “active”/“inactive” filters, which process instances have or have not yet reached a given node of the plan [are absent from that portion of the user path]. A node (the Condition Node) that functions as a condition block determining whether, and along which outgoing arrow (edge), a process instance (user object) advances);
generating a second group of the user objects associated with the active checkpoints from the other user paths (See Par. [117]-[119] and Fig. 10 of Ghoneimy for a reference to the Universal Activity List aggregates, across all processes, the set of users/assignees associated with currently active activity nodes, and that this list can be filtered (e.g., an “ALLactive” filter option) to return the group of users associated with active items system-wide (§ describing filter options “MYactive, MyInactive, ALLactive, ALLinactive, Everything”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ghoneimy to Vigeant. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by providing a workflow management framework which empowers business groups to collaboratively plan, automate, track, and improve business processes. (Ghoneimy; Par. [29])
The combination of Vigeant and Ghoneimy does not explicitly disclose performing, by a processing device, a negative match to identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group; and preventing the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path.
However, Sharma discloses performing, by a processing device, a negative match to identify a first user object from the first group and a second user object from the second group (See Par. [19], [48] and Fig. 5 of Sharma for a reference to the marketing communication manager 118 leverages the suppression rules 110 to suppress certain contacts [Negative Matching] in the contact distribution list from receiving the marketing content 304 by applying the suppression rules data 202 to the contact data 112 to generate suppression lists 114. Each suppression list 114 includes a list of contacts who are prevented from receiving marketing content 304 due to a suppression rule 110); and
preventing the first user object and the second user object from entering the first user path (See Par. [30], [49] and Fig. 5 of Sharma for a reference to the marketing communication manager 118 accesses the suppression lists 114 and prevents communication of the marketing content 304 to contacts included in the suppression lists 114).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sharma to the combination of Vigeant and Ghoneimy. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by improving transparency and accountability to suppression rule modifications. (Sharma; Par. [23])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses wherein the first user path further comprises a first subsequent node, and further comprising: attempting to match each user object with a respective ruleset of the first subsequent node (See Par. [54], [57], [79] of Vigeant for a reference to the match engine 140 processes the users in the candidate [Third] group and identifies a user is qualified if there is a match between the user’s qualification attributes and the job opportunity qualification attributes [Job opportunity qualifications is mapped to the ruleset]); and
advancing each user object along at least one true edge to a second subsequent node in response to matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [57]-[58] of Vigeant for a reference to the qualification attributes has a weighting factor. After an attribute is checked for match and a weighting factor is determined, the user record is advanced to the next qualification attribute to determine the match score of the entire record).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: advancing each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [57]-[59] of Vigeant for a reference to the qualification attributes has a weighting factor. After an attribute is checked for match and a weighting factor is determined, the user record is advanced to the next qualification attribute to determine the match score of the entire record [If no match is determined, the user record is determined not qualified (false edge is detected)]).
Regarding claim 6, Vigeant does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user path further comprises a content block and an action block.
However, Ghoneimy discloses wherein the first user path further comprises a content block and an action block (See Par. [71]-[72] and Fig. 10 of Ghoneimy for a reference to the Activity node is a graphical representation of an activity that requires user interaction. The activity node can be assigned one or more forms to allow user access to the attributes of the containing process. An activity may also be assigned one or more files as an attachment.” This Activity Node delivers content to the assigned user (a content block). The node can execute a defined action when the node is activated or completed (an action block)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ghoneimy to Vigeant. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by providing a workflow management framework which empowers business groups to collaboratively plan, automate, track, and improve business processes. (Ghoneimy; Par. [29])
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: completing an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [27], [57] of Vigeant for a reference to identifying a record [Checkpoint] having attributes satisfying first attributes subject to its weighting factor for each attribute. All attributes are checked for matching to determines the record’s score to determine matching/no matching).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses wherein completing the entry record for the first user path is in response to no false edges extending from the first subsequent node (See Par. [54]-[56] of Vigeant for a reference to the match engine 140 can query the user database for an entry record to identify user records having all attributes matching the qualification attributes for the opportunity record. Users records identified as a match are stored in match table 124).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: following a processing condition of a first subsequent checkpoint in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [56]-[57] of Vigeant for a reference to the match engine 140 can identify one or more user records [Checkpoints] as imperfect match and mark this in a separate group. The imperfect match is a record with attributes that does not match one or more of high weighting factor qualification attributes of the job opportunity [Ruleset]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a system (See Vigeant; Fig. 1; System 100) comprising: a memory (See Vigeant; Fig. 1; Memory 112); and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory (See Vigeant; Fig. 1; Match engine 140).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma, specifically Vigeant discloses wherein the processing device is further to:
advance each user object along at least one false edge to a third subsequent node in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [57]-[59] of Vigeant for a reference to the qualification attributes has a weighting factor. After an attribute is checked for match and a weighting factor is determined, the user record is advanced to the next qualification attribute to determine the match score of the entire record [If no match is determined, the user record is determined not qualified (false edge is detected)]); or
complete an entry record for the first user path in response to not matching the user object with the respective ruleset (See Par. [27], [57] of Vigeant for a reference to identifying a record [Checkpoint] having attributes satisfying first attributes subject to its weighting factor for each attribute. All attributes are checked for matching to determines the record’s score to determine matching/no matching).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim1, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (See Par. [17] of Vigeant for a reference to a non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions).
9. Claims 2-3, 10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigeant et al. in view of Ghoneimy et al. in view of Sharma et al. and further in view of Munipalle (US. Pub. No. 2021/0382863 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma does not explicitly disclose locating expired checkpoints within the other user paths with each expired checkpoint having a user object associated therewith to form a fourth group of user objects associated with the expired checkpoints; and processing each user object associated with the expired checkpoints by advancing the user object along false edges or removing the user object from the respective user path in response to locating the expired checkpoints.
However, Munipalle discloses locating expired checkpoints within the other user paths with each expired checkpoint having a user object associated therewith to form a fourth group of user objects associated with the expired checkpoints (See Par. [20]-[22] and Fig. 4A of Munipalle for a reference to TTL timestamp is identified for the data record associated with a process. Determining the location of the expired TTL timestamp record [Checkpoint] associated with the process); and
processing each user object associated with the expired checkpoints by advancing the user object along false edges or removing the user object from the respective user path in response to locating the expired checkpoints (See Par. [22], [37]-[40] of Munipalle for a reference to all expired records are marked and grouped for eviction to one or more message queue. Evection process 150 includes removing all records with expired TTL timestamp, and to be saved in a failure log in one of message queues).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munipalle to the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by efficiently locating data records with expired TTL timestamps and removing them for increased memory utilization. (Munipalle; Par. [23-24])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma does not explicitly disclose locating user objects that match exit rules for a respective user path; and removing user objects that match exit rules for the respective user path in response to locating the user objects matching exit rules.
However, Munipalle discloses locating user objects that match exit rules for a respective user path (See Par. [20]-[22] and Fig. 4A of Munipalle for a reference to TTL timestamp is identified for the data record associated with a process. Determining the location of the expired TTL timestamp record [Checkpoint] associated with the process [Expired records are exit from the process]); and
removing user objects that match exit rules for the respective user path in response to locating the user objects matching exit rules (See Par. [75]-[76] of Munipalle for a reference to in response to determining that the TTL associated with a record is expired and needs to exit the process, evicting [Removing] the expired records to the message queue).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munipalle to the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by efficiently locating data records with expired TTL timestamps and removing them for increased memory utilization. (Munipalle; Par. [23-24])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma does not explicitly disclose wherein following the processing condition of the active checkpoint comprises snoozing the first subsequent checkpoint for a period of time defined by the processing condition.
However, Munipalle discloses wherein following the processing condition of the active checkpoint comprises snoozing the active checkpoint for a period of time defined by the processing condition (See Par. [40], [56], [58] of Munipalle for a reference to a timeout period is identified to wait for a challenge response from the user after determining no match. The user’s record is re-checked during the timeout period).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munipalle to the combination of Vigeant, Ghoneimy and Sharma. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by efficiently locating data records with expired TTL timestamps and removing them for increased memory utilization. (Munipalle; Par. [23-24])
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rathod (US. Pub. No. 2022/0179665 A1) discloses displaying contextual keywords with corresponding associated or related or contextual one or more types of user actions, reactions, call-to-actions, relations, activities and interactions for user selection.
Soderqvist (US. Pub. No. 2021/0187399 A1) discloses controlling a user interface responsive to user engagement with display elements on the interface of a computer device.
Jones et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0041606 A1) discloses a system and method for detecting and locating the transmission of radio frequency signals from within a defined geographical area.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights