DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered.
The amended claims 3, 10 and 17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed in the 112 rejections below.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcock et al. (US8046780B1) in view of He (CN106487891B), Applicants argue on page 10-11 that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest "analyze the monitoring data stored in the data repository, via an artificial intelligence engine" and "identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues" as recited by amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive:
First, claim 1 does not recite any distinguishing feature(s) of the claimed “artificial intelligence engine". Therefore, under BRI, any computer implementing a process can be interpreted as the claimed “artificial intelligence engine".
Second, the “identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues" is non-functional descriptive limitation since the “one or more patterns” does not interact with the rest of the claim. The limitation “identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues” is rejected over prior art for compact prosecution only. The Examiner suggests the Applicant to amend the claim with, for example, “generate one or more predictive insights based on the identified patterns; and display the one or more predictive insights to the one or more users via the graphical user interface (see dependent claim 6 and para [0009, 0050] of the specification)”. Amendments would require further search and consideration to determine patentability.
As to any argument not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 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.
The term “different levels of a process” in claims 3, 10 and 17 renders the claim indefinite because the term “different levels of a process” is not defined by the claim. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention as the specification simply describes in para [0047] if an application sends different messages into the queue at different levels of a process associated with the application, the system may allow one or more users to define different predefined queue attributes for different levels of the process associated with the application.
The Examiner urges the Applicants to further narrow the claims with, for example, “different levels of a process based on different Service Level Agreements (SLAs)” (para [0022]).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcock et al. (US8046780B1) in view of He (CN106487891B) and Rast (US20010034769A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alcock discloses a system for performing proactive latency detection in messaging service queues, the system comprising ([Abstract] shows a system placing all messages in a queue as they are received; the system accounts for delayed messages):
at least one network communication interface ([col 8 lines 17-18] shows the receive module receiving messages from an information feed);
at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device and the at least one network communication interface, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to ([col 7 lines 52-54] shows the asset management system 400 includes one or more storages 410, 445 and one or more processors 420,422, and receives messages from an information feed):
continuously monitor, in real-time, one or more messaging service queues associated with one or more applications of an entity ([col 5 lines 44-45] shows the messages are sorted into groups by business entity with which the messages are associated; [col 7 lines 20-21] shows the system also stores a time stamp with the message when it is placed in the queue (e.g., continuously monitor in real-time); [col 9 lines 42-62] shows the partial order message queue (POMQ) is a logical entity with several smaller queues 315 inside. Messages about asset A are processed by queue A, messages about asset B are processed by queue B, etc. The POMQ 310 dispatches messages to one or more application servers. Each server 335 includes an application server 360);
identify one or more messages in the one or more messaging service queues ([col 9 lines 42-45] shows messages about asset A are processed by queue A, messages about asset B are processed by queue B, etc.);
read the one or more messages to identify at least one queue attribute [time stamp when message is placed in the queue] ([col 7 lines 20-26] shows the system also stores a time stamp with the message when it is placed in the queue. Periodically, the system checks the time stamps for messages that have been in the queue for more than a predetermined amount of time);
compare the at least one queue attribute to a predefined queue attribute associated with the one or more applications; determine that the at least one queue attribute [time stamp] exceeds the predefined queue attribute [2 days]; and transmit one or more notifications to one or more users associated with the entity ([col 7 lines 20-26] shows periodically, the system checks the time stamps for messages that have been in the queue for more than a predetermined amount of time. If a message is queued for more than, for example 2 days, an alert is issued to the user who may then update the system so that the system now accepts the unknown state of the message).
Alcock fails to teach the system is configured to read header of at least one message of the one or more messages to identify at least one attribute; and
store monitoring data associated with continuously monitoring the one or more messaging service queues associated with the one or more applications in a data repository;
analyze the monitoring data stored in the data repository, via an artificial intelligence engine; and
identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues.
However, He discloses ([Abstract] shows processing message; [page 3 lines 22-27] shows providing real-time consumption of message queue), discloses the system to read header of at least one message of the one or more messages to identify at least one attribute ([page 3 lines 52-53] shows the message header includes UUID, encryption details, timestamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Alcock with the teaching of He in order to encapsulate message pattern in message header timestamp (He; [page 3 lines 52-53]).
Alcock-He-Rast as combined discloses message pattern (He; [page 3 lines 52-53])) but fails to teach:
store monitoring data associated with continuously monitoring the one or more messaging service queues associated with the one or more applications in a data repository;
analyze the monitoring data stored in the data repository, via an artificial intelligence engine; and
identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues.
However, Rast discloses:
store monitoring data associated with continuously monitoring the one or more messaging service queues associated with the one or more applications in a data repository (para [0075] shows messages to be timely delivered; para [0046] shows network delay patterns can be identified such that messages from the queue are retrieved prior to the specified delivery time; para [0058] shows the server 254 periodically (e.g., continuously) checks the queue of messages to be delivered);
analyze the monitoring data stored in the data repository, via an artificial intelligence engine; and identify one or more patterns associated with queuing in the one or more messaging service queues (para [0046] shows network delay patterns can be identified such that messages from the queue are retrieved prior to the specified delivery time and a calculation applied relating to the destination address and the current delay and loading, so that a more accurate send time is determined.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Alcock-He with the teaching of Rast in order to timely deliver messages (Rast; para [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Alcock-He-Rast as applied to claim 1 discloses the at least one message is a first-in message (Alcock; [col 5 lines 42-43] shows the message queue is a standard first in, first out (FIFO) queue.)
Regarding claim 3, Alcock-He-Rast as applied to claim 1 discloses the at least one processing device is configured to allow the one or more users to define the predefined queue attributes for different levels of a process associated with the one or more applications (Alcock; [col 6 lines 38-40] shows processing delays are limited by a time-out rule. For example, the rule may be that if a message has been waiting to be processed for t hours, alert the user; [col 7 lines 20-26] shows the system also stores a time stamp with the message when it is placed in the queue. Periodically, the system checks the time stamps for messages that have been in the queue for more than a predetermined amount of time. If a message is queued for more than, for example 2 days, an alert is issued to the user.)
Regarding claim 4, Alcock-He-Rast as applied to claim 1 discloses the at least one attribute is queue put time associated with the each of the one or more messages and the predefined queue attribute is message processing throughput time (Alcock; [Abstract] shows to provide efficient message processing; [col 6 lines 38-40] shows processing delays are limited by a time-out rule. For example, the rule may be that if a message has been waiting to be processed for t hours, alert the user; [col 7 lines 20-26] shows the system also stores a time stamp with the message when it is placed in the queue. Periodically, the system checks the time stamps for messages that have been in the queue for more than a predetermined amount of time. If a message is queued for more than, for example 2 days, an alert is issued to the user who may then update the system so that the system now accepts the unknown state of the message).
Regarding claim 7, Alcock-He-Rast as applied to claim 1 discloses the one or more notifications are multi-channel notifications (Alcock; [col 7 line 18] shows alerts and reports.)
Regarding claims 8-11 and 14, claims 8-11 and 14 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 8-11 and 14 require limitations that are similar to those recited in the system claims 1-4 and 7 to carry out the method steps. And since the references Alcock-He combined teach the system that carries out the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore method claims 8-11 and 14 would have also been obvious in view of the structures disclosed in Alcock-He combined.
Furthermore, Alcock-He-Rast as combined discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer executable instructions (Alcock; [col 7 lines 52-60]).
Regarding claims 15-18, claims 15-18 are directed to a method. Claims 15-18 require limitations that are similar to those recited in the system claims 1-4 to carry out the method steps. And since the references Alcock-He combined teach the system that carries out the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore method claims 15-18 would have also been obvious in view of the structures disclosed in Alcock-He combined.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcock in view of He and Rast, further in view of Slater et al. (US7870200B2).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Alcock-He-Rast as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 fails to teach the at least one processing device is configured to: display the one or more patterns associated with the queuing to the one or more users via a graphical user interface.
However, Slater discloses display the one or more patterns associated with the queuing to the one or more users via a graphical user interface ([Abstract] shows monitoring electronic messages received at a server; [col 16 lines 39-60] shows the use of a GUI for displaying message information, such as in the forms of graphs and tables illustrated in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, allows the user to identify patterns; in FIG. 3, recipient graph 330 can include an additional line that indicates the average number of recipients per minute that is based on the message information received over the past thirty days.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Alcock-He-Rast with the teaching of Slater in order to allow a user to identify patterns in the message flows and thereby take actions based on the identified pattern (Slater; [col 3 lines 54-56]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Alcock-He-Slater as applied to claims 5, 12 and 19 discloses the at least one processing device is configured to: generate one or more predictive insights based analyzing the monitoring data; and display the one or more predictive insights to the one or more users via the graphical user interface (Slater; [col 59 line 55] shows aggregating the additional message information; [col 60 lines 1-56] shows modifying how one or more future electronic messages received at said server from said particular network address are handled by said server; displaying said aggregate policy information; displaying said combined aggregate information.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Oscar Louie, can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAN DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights