DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 10 March 2026 in regard to application no. 18/950,884. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 Interpretation
The claims now include that a “set of domain commands are associated with a type of computer operation performable by [] at least one processor”. But that is essentially just the definition of software. For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology gives one definition1 as “Computer programs (which are stored in and executed by computer hardware) and associated data (which also is stored in the hardware)”. [emphasis added] As such, the quoted language, which is even broader, (only requiring association with such programs) is not limiting and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the third “wherein” clause, a word is missing. The phrase “wherein set of domain software commands are” should read “wherein the set of domain software commands are”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 12 and 13 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. In claims 2 and 12, there is insufficient basis for “the UI”. In claims 3 and 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the context of portfolio management”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0034500) in view of Terwedo (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229898).
In-line citations are to Das.
With regard to Claim 1:
Das teaches: A method comprising:
orchestrating, by at least one processor, [0046; "one or more hardware processors"] in response to a composite software command, a set of domain software commands to perform at least one computer operation based at least in part on user input data... [0008; a "dashboard command" is transmitted to a "first data storage system" to "generate [a] dashboard that includes [] one or more graphics" related to a user intent based on a "first user input"; 0263; information may come from "domain-specific data sources"]
wherein the composite software command comprises a single command mapped to the set of domain software commands; [0008; it is explicitly a single dashboard command]
wherein the set of domain software commands are associated with a type of computer operation performable by the at least one processor; [see above; as this simply defines what software is in general, it is considered but given no patentable weight]
wherein the composite software command is configured to invoke each domain software command in the set of domain software commands based at least in part on the user input data; [0008 as cited above] and
communicating, by the at least one processor, at least one output of the at least one computer operation to the at least one computing device in response to the composite software command. [id.; 0026; the resulting dashboard is displayed]
Das does not explicitly teach that the composite software command comprises the user input data, but it is known in the art. Terwedo teaches a browser-based application management system. [title] It provides a "main dashboard" with certain "icons and modules". [0034] It allows for use of an "application" across "different web domains", [0036] and a user may "input" a "sale" which is then transmitted to a "customer". [0004] Terwedo and Das are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing domain-specific software and presenting an interface in the form of a dashboard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Terwedo with that of Das in order to provide consistency, as taught by Terwedo; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing the output of Terwedo in place of, or in addition to, that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the at least one processor, a collection of context-specific UI components associated with a context of the UI; and
instructing, by the at least one processor, the at least one computing device to display context-specific data using the collection of context-specific UI components in the context of the UI. [0008, 0026 as cited above in regard to claim 1; that the information displayed is based on a user intent reads on it being context specific; "one or more graphics" are created and displayed]
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, user input data via the composite software command; [0008, as cited above in regard to claim 1] wherein the user input data comprises a plurality of user input data items; [0008; 0277; first and second requests are received]
determining, by the at least one processor, at least one user input data item of the user input data items associated with each respective domain software command of the set of domain software commands; [id.; either request is related to a search] and
generating, by the at least one processor, a set of domain commands having the at least one user input data item of the user input data items associated with each respective domain software command of the set of domain software commands. [0008 as cited above; a search is performed based on the request]
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, further comprising recording, by the at least one processor, the at least one output associated with each respective portfolio management microservice in an event log. [0031; data may be recorded in "system logs"]
With regard to Claim 11:
Das teaches: A system comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having software instructions stored thereon, [0046; "one or more hardware processors" is configured to "execute the instructions" stored in "one or more memories"] wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is configured to:
orchestrate, [0046; "one or more hardware processors"] in response to a composite software command, a set of domain software commands to perform at least one computer operation based at least in part on user input data... [0008; a "dashboard command" is transmitted to a "first data storage system" to "generate [a] dashboard that includes [] one or more graphics" related to a user intent based on a "first user input"; 0263; information may come from "domain-specific data sources"]
wherein the composite software command comprises a single command mapped to the set of domain software commands; [0008; it is explicitly a single dashboard command]
wherein the set of domain software commands are associated with a type of computer operation performable by the at least one processor; [see above; as this simply defines what software is in general, it is considered but given no patentable weight]
wherein the composite software command is configured to invoke each domain software command in the set of domain software commands based at least in part on the user input data; [0008 as cited above] and
communicate at least one output of the at least one computer operation to the at least one computing device in response to the composite software command. [id.; 0026; the resulting dashboard is displayed]
Das does not explicitly teach that the composite software command comprises the user input data, but it is known in the art. Terwedo teaches a browser-based application management system. [title] It provides a "main dashboard" with certain "icons and modules". [0034] It allows for use of an "application" across "different web domains", [0036] and a user may "input" a "sale" which is then transmitted to a "customer". [0004] Terwedo and Das are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing domain-specific software and presenting an interface in the form of a dashboard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Terwedo with that of Das in order to provide consistency, as taught by Terwedo; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing the output of Terwedo in place of, or in addition to, that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is further configured to:
generate a collection of context-specific UI components associated with a context of the UI; and
instruct the at least one computing device to display context-specific data using the collection of context-specific UI components in the context of the UI. [0008, 0026 as cited above in regard to claim 1; that the information displayed is based on a user intent reads on it being context specific; "one or more graphics" are created and displayed]
With regard to Claim 15:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is further configured to:
receive user input data via the composite software command; [0008, as cited above in regard to claim 1]
wherein the user input data comprises a plurality of user input data items; [0008; 0277; first and second requests are received]
determine at least one user input data item of the user input data items associated with each respective domain software command of the set of domain software commands; [id.; either request is related to a search] and
generate a set of domain commands having the at least one user input data item of the user input data items associated with each respective domain software command of the set of domain software commands. [0008 as cited above; a search is performed based on the request]
With regard to Claim 19:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is further configured to record the at least one output associated with each respective portfolio management microservice in an event log. [0031; data may be recorded in "system logs"]
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. in view of Terwedo further in view of Kramer et al. (European Patent Application No. 1 126 392).
Claims 3 and 13 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the context of portfolio management is selectable from a dashboard UI of the UI.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 12, wherein the context of portfolio management is selectable from a dashboard UI of the UI.
Das and Terwedo teach the method of claim 2 and system of claim 12, including making a selection from a dashboard (e.g. Das, 0172) but do not explicitly teach the data represents a portfolio, but it is known in the art. Kramer teaches a system for customization of electronic content based on customer attributes. [title] It may manage information about "stock portfolios". [0003] Data may be displayed to users via a "dashboard", [0261] which may display "transaction data". [id.]
A "modeling engine" may update consumer models, [0126] and may present appropriate data to specific consumers based on the models. [0127] Consumers may be classified according to "transaction histories" and "summaries" having to do with their use of a "credit card". [0136] Consumers with similar histories may be presented with similar or identical offers. [Fig. 4] Facts may be relevant to the "domains of the transactions". [0121] Kramer and Das are analogous art as each is directed to presenting financial information via dashboards and using domain-specific data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kramer with that of Das and Terwedo in order to customize information for specific users, as taught by Kramer; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using the data of Kramer in place of, or in addition to, that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein context comprises a credit entities context associated with a credit entities microservice for aggregating one or more related legal entities having common lines of credit. [Kramer, 0136, Fig. 4 as cited above in regard to claim 3]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of claim 13, wherein context comprises a credit entities context associated with a credit entities microservice for aggregating one or more related legal entities having common lines of credit. [Kramer, 0136, Fig. 4 as cited above in regard to claim 13]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 13 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. in view of Terwedo further in view of Gopalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0310888, filed 20 March 2020).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of domain software commands is associated with a respective collection of microservices which further comprises at least one shared microservice for performing at least one task common to a plurality of contexts.
With regard to Claim 16:
The system of claim 11, wherein the set of domain software commands is associated with a respective collection of microservices which further comprises at least one shared microservice for performing at least one task common to a plurality of contexts.
Das and Terwedo teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, but do not explicitly teach an association with microservices, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Gopalan teaches an Al-based cloud service for the financial services industry. [title] It presents a "microservice platform dashboard" to capture "intentions". [0018] The microservices may be "adapted" and apply to a "plurality of domains". [0085] Gopalan and Das are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing a dashboard and using user intent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gopalan with that of Das and Terwedo in order to provide better application control, as taught by Gopalan; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply associating modules in the manner of Gopalan instead of, or in addition to, that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
These claims are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 11, as they merely disclose one microservice for performing a task but do not require the task to actually be performed, and otherwise simply recites a coincidental but unused feature of software modules. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. in view of Terwedo further in view of Pichhadze (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0385109).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, further comprising retrieving, by the at least one processor, one or more user interface templates and one or more user interface functions in response to the composite software command.
With regard to Claim 17:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is further configured to retrieve one or more user interface templates and one or more user interface functions in response to the composite software command.
Das and Terwedo teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, including retrieving interface functions in response to a command as cited above, but do not explicitly teach retrieving a template, but it is known in the art. Pichhadze teaches a dashboard based system [title] in which a "dashboard template is retrieved" from a "dashboard library" and an "icon" is retrieved from an "icon library". [0073] Pichhadze and Das are analogous art as each is directed to user interfaces which comprise a dashboard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Pichhadze with that of Das and Terwedo in order to assist with finding information, as taught by Pichhadze; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply building a dashboard in the manner of Pichhadze rather than that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. in view of Terwedo further in view of Khuti et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0067789).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the at least one processor, financial projections based on microservice responses to each respective domain software command.
With regard to Claim 18:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the software instructions, is further configured to generate financial projections based on microservice responses to each respective domain software command.
Das and Terwedo teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, including the use of domain software commands as cited above, but do not explicitly teach making financial projections, but it is known in the art. Khuti teaches an asset intelligence system [title] that provides an "insight personal dashboard". [0501] It makes use of "microservices" to provide its functionality, [0013] and can make predictions related to "financial planning". [0567] Khuti and Das are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing dashboard-based interfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Khuti with that of Das and Terwedo in order to assist in distilling voluminous data, as taught by Khuti; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Khuti's output in place of, or in addition to, that of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. in view of Terwedo further in view of Orsini et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0248772).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of domain software commands is associated with at least one public microservice.
With regard to Claim 20:
The system of claim 11, wherein the set of domain software commands is associated with at least one public microservice.
Das and Terwedo teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, including the use of domain software as cited above, but do not explicitly teach an association with a public microservice, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Orsini teaches a microservice streaming system [title] that provides user interfaces in the form of "dashboards". [0095] It makes use of "public intelligent microservices". [0151] Orsini and Das are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing user interfaces comprising dashboards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Orsini with that of Das and Terwedo in order to assist with managing potentially voluminous data, as taught by Orsini; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply making use of public microservices as in Orsini rather than, or in addition to, using the modules of Das; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
These claims are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 11, as they merely recite a coincidence among data, but impart neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method or system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to § 112(a), the rejection of most claims has been rendered moot by the present amendment and is withdrawn; only claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 remain rejected on this basis, and those can be easily remedied.
In regard to § 103, attacking the references individually is not persuasive where the rejection is based on the combination. The applicant’s complaint that the proposed modification “would require re-architecting Das’” technique is unpersuasive because it appears to be based on the assumption that the Examiner would propose bodily incorporating Terwedo’s method into that of Das, but that is not required; the proposed modification is simply moving data from one place to another, which does not require any structural modification at all. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Glossary, Nat’l Inst. Of Standards and Tech., online at crsc.nist.gov/glossary/term/software
Prosecution Insights