DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 06/22/2026 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 02/19/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
2. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended. No claims are added or canceled. As a result, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierner (US 2025/0156241 A1) and in view of Snider (US 2019/0140994 A1) and further in view of Prismon (US 2017/0308822 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 11 and 20, Biernar discloses an apparatus comprising one or more processors (See para. [0029], a distributed computing system that includes one or more servers with processors) and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors (See para. [0029] and para. [0030] and para. [0083], the one or more servers with processors for executing processes initiated at workstation or other client devices) to: receive, from a client device, a sharding request to configure data sharding for a component associated with a multi-component system of an application framework (See para. [0028], para. [0031], para. [0058], para. [0073], a subcluster system utilizes a cloud-computing orchestrator to identify subclusters corresponding to a request and to perform operation(s) [e.g., name-sharding] on content items in subclusters, note in para. [0073] the subcluster periodically updates one or more subclusters based on the requested items and determines which subclusters to place the new content items in); wherein the sharding request comprises at least a component identifier for the component (See para. [0058] and para. [0073] and Figure 5, the subcluster system idenfies one or more subclusters and/or content items [e.g., content item(s) 504 can be interpreted as a component identifier] within the subclusters in response to the request, for example, the identified subcluster 310 stores military records which includes content items for the request);
determine (i) a component […] data structure that defines a data routing strategy for propagating data associated with the component identifier to one or more partitions of a database or one or more computing resources of the application framework […] (See para. [0079] and Figure 5, the subcluster system determines content items [e.g., content item(s) 504 is interpreted as a component identifier] that are associated with the request and analyzes metadata indicating parameters of data fields of the content items [e.g., data fields such as data types, sources are examples of the component data schema or structure] within an identified subcluster 506 [e.g. routing to a subcluster 506 or other subcluster(s)], the subcluster system determines name-sharding data indicating name-based separation or delineations between data partitions within the cluster 506, where content items for different groups of names are hosted at different shards); determining a partition identifier for a particular partition of the database or a particular computing resource that is allocated to the component identifier (See para. [0078]- and para. [0080] and Figure 5, the subcluster system 102 identifies birth, marriage, and death record images [e.g., content item 504 is interpreted as component identifier] to add to the corresponding subcluster 506 [e.g., a partition identifier] and further identifies military records to add to the corresponding subcluster 512. In response to adding new content items, the subcluster system 102 further scales the computational resources of the subcluster 506 and the subcluster 512 accordingly (e.g., by adding new virtual machines in proportion to, e.g., the volume of the newly acquired content and/or in response to a predicted number of search requests corresponding thereto).
generate a partition set data structure that defines a relationship mapping between the component identifier (See Figure 5, generates a partition set data structure [e.g. 510, 516, 520] that defines a relationship mapping with respect to the content item(s) 504), the component […] data structure (See para. [0079], analyzes metadata indicating parameters [e.g., data types, sources] of data fields of the content item(s)), and the partition identifier (See para. [0079] and Figure 5, subcluster 506); and
correlate the partition set data structure to a deployment of the component associated with the multi-component system of the application framework (see para. [0019] and para. [0075], the subcluster system determines subclusters that associated with the content item(s) corresponding to the request and determines when to perform blue deployment operations and/or green deployment operations for shards or virtual machines associated with the subclusters).
Biernar discloses everything except determines an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying communication data using machine learning. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Biernar in view Snider does not explicitly a component archetype data structure that comprises a component descriptor indicative of a functionality of the component and one or more other components associated with the component archetype data structure.
Prismon discloses a component archetype data structure that comprises a component descriptor indicative of a functionality of the component and one or more other components associated with the component archetype data structure (See para. [0042] and para. [0050], The component archetype of a component can include a descriptor file that indicates the types of functions that are supported by the corresponding component, which is an instance of the component generated based on the component archetype. Specifically, the component archetype can include function factories that can be used to generate specific types of functions. As such, in some implementations of the current subject matter, the decision management platform 110 [e.g., the function generator 312] can identify, based on the descriptor file in each available component archetype, the appropriate component archetype. For example, the decision management platform 110 can identify, based on the descriptor file in each available component archetype, a component that supports generating a function implementing the knowledge model 230).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure that comprises a component descriptor, as taught by Prismon. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a component archetype which include resources for instantiating a instance of a component to improve analytic decision application deployment (See Prismon, para. [0003] and para. [0006]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 2 and 12, Bierner discloses generate a partition set identifier for a partition set data structure; and generate routing context information for the component that is indicative of i) the component data structure and (ii) the partition set identifier (See Figure 5, generates a partition set data structure [e.g. 510, 516, 520] that defines a relationship mapping with respect to the content item(s) 504).
Biernar discloses does not explicitly disclose an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 3 and 13, Bierner discloses wherein the partition identifier is uniquely correlated to the component based on the component data structure
Biernar does not explicitly disclose an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 4 and 14, Bierner discloses wherein the relationship mapping comprises a particular relationship mapping between the partition set identifier and the component archetype data structure (See para. [0059], the orchestrator uses a façade pattern 306 includes computer code that maps data for subclusters 308, 110, 312 that matches the content item(s) of the request).
As to claims 5 and 15, Bierner does not explicitly disclose archetype data structure represents a type of service.
Snider discloses wherein the archetype component data structure represents a type of service provided by a combination of the component and one or more other components of the application framework (See para. [0013], identifying, by the machine learning classification system, at least one archetype classification that relates to at least one distinct online user archetype of a plurality of distinct online user archetypes).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 6 and 16, Bierner does not explicitly disclose a component descriptor indicative of capabilities of the component and one or more other components associated with the component archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component descriptor indicative of capabilities of the component and one or more other components associated with the component archetype data structure (See para. [0014], a machine learning system comprising an ensemble of machine learning classifiers comprising a plurality of distinct machine learning classifiers, wherein each of the plurality of distinct machine learning classifiers is configured to generate a distinct archetype classification label upon a detection of a distinct archetype data feature, wherein processing the electronic communication data includes: generating by the plurality of distinct machine learning classifiers one or more archetype machine learning classification labels for the at least one online user based on one or more distinct archetype data features of the extracted archetype data features).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 8 and 18, Bierner discloses update the component data structure based on one or more changes with respect to an entity associated with the partition set data structure (See para. [0078]- and para. [0080] and Figure 5, the subcluster system 102 identifies birth, marriage, and death record images [e.g., content item 504 is interpreted as component identifier] to add to the corresponding subcluster 506 [e.g., a partition identifier] and further identifies military records to add to the corresponding subcluster 512. In response to adding new content items, the subcluster system 102 further scales the computational resources of the subcluster 506 and the subcluster 512 accordingly (e.g., by adding new virtual machines in proportion to, e.g., the volume of the newly acquired content and/or in response to a predicted number of search requests corresponding thereto).
Biernar does not explicitly disclose an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 9 and 19, Bierner discloses update the component data structure based on one or more changes with respect to one or more policies associated with the component (See para. [0078]- and para. [0080] and Figure 5, the subcluster system 102 identifies birth, marriage, and death record images [e.g., content item 504 is interpreted as component identifier] to add to the corresponding subcluster 506 [e.g., a partition identifier] and further identifies military records to add to the corresponding subcluster 512. In response to adding new content items, the subcluster system 102 further scales the computational resources of the subcluster 506 and the subcluster 512 accordingly (e.g., by adding new virtual machines in proportion to, e.g., the volume of the newly acquired content and/or in response to a predicted number of search requests corresponding thereto).
Biernar does not explicitly disclose an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 10, Bierner discloses update the component data structure based on migration of the partition with one or more other partitions of the database (See para. [0079] and Figure 5, the subcluster system 102 identifies a content item 508 to add to the subcluster 506. In response to adding the content item 508, the subcluster system 102 reindexes or updates the subcluster 506 which results in refreshing various subcluster data 510, such as: i) subcluster metadata indicating parameters of the subcluster 506 (e.g., subcluster data size, content type or other features of content items in the subcluster 506, a number of content items in the subcluster 506, and allocation data for virtual machines assigned to the subcluster 506); ii) name-sharding data indicating name-based separations or delineations between data partitions within the subcluster 506, where content items for different groups of names are hosted at different shards; iii) field metadata indicating parameters of data fields of content items within the subcluster 506 (e.g., creation times, data sizes, sources, data types, and other information for individual data fields); and/or iv) specialization data indicating relatedness between data fields of content items within the subcluster 506).
Biernar does not explicitly disclose an archetype data structure.
Snider discloses a component archetype data structure (See para. [0012], para. [0056] and para. [0082], determines an archetype classification) that defines a data routing strategy for data associated with the component identifier (See para. [0082] and Figure 2, the archetype classification is associated with an archetype network mapping or routings [e.g. task allocations]).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure, as taught by Snider. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to access and analyze the electronic communication data associated a communication node to determine a classification for each communication node operating within the electronic communications environment by allowing select communication nodes to make communication routing decisions using the node classification data provided with a network mapping (See Snider, para. [0056]). In addition, all references (Prismon, Bierner and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying data using machine learned model. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierner (US 2025/0156241 A1) and in view of Snider (US 2019/0140994 A1) and Prismon (US 2017/0308822 A1) and further in view of Thakur (2021/0304322 A1).
As to claims 7 and 17, Bierner in view of Snider does not explicitly disclose the component archetype data structure comprises a component descriptor indicative of a number of instances deployment.
Thakur discloses the component archetype data structure comprises a component descriptor indicative of a number of instances deployment (See para. [0022], [0058] and Figure 2, the system defining transactions based on transaction archetypes and indicating a number of application instances 210A-210B represent specific transactions in applications).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the component data structure to include an archetype data structure comprises a component descriptor indicative of a number of instances deployment, as taught by Thakur. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to minimizing inconsistencies in code deployed to process a transaction, and inconsistences in actions performed in a computing system with respect to a transaction (See Thakur, para. [0022]). In addition, all references (Thakur, Bierner , Prismon and Snider) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as classifying communication data using machine learning. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greening et al. (US 2001/0013009 A1) discloses a method predicts the interest of a user in specific items--such as movies, books, commercial products, web pages, television programs, articles, push media, etc.--based on that user's behavioral or preferential similarities to other users, to objective archetypes formed by assembling items satisfying a search criterion, a market segment profile, a demographic profile or a psychographic profile, to composite archetypes formed by partitioning users into like-minded groups or clusters then merging the attributes of users in a group, or to a combination. The system uses subjective information from users and composite archetypes, and objective information from objective archetypes to form predictions, making the system highly efficient and allowing the system to accommodate "cold start" situations where the preferences of other people are not yet known.
Heidenreich et al. (US 7,756, 806 B1) discloses systems and methods to facilitate the thinking and problem-solving abilities of groups and multiple individuals working collaboratively or collectively in arbitrary problems and inquiry-based projects, in both formal and informal settings and situations.
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 YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
YUK TING CHOI
Examiner
Art Unit 2153
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights