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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed August 7, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pissey et al. (US 2017/0109152 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Pissey discloses a dynamic resource assembly system, the dynamic resource assembly system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory associated with the at least one processor having computer coded instructions therein, with the computer coded instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 1 and [0020], computing device 100), cause the system to:
receive or retrieve an update for an existing computing resource (Abstract, receiving an update package for a plurality of software components);
identify at least a first computing resource set of a plurality of computing resource sets comprising the existing computing resource ([0033]-[0035], determine relationship between components), the first computing resource set comprising a plurality of computing resources including the existing computing resource and a plurality of other computing resources ([0033]-[0034], dependent and interdependent components are grouped together), each of the plurality of computing resources being modularly incorporated in the first computing resource set ([0033]-[0034], dependent and interdependent components are grouped together); and
replace the existing computing resource with a second computing resource while maintaining continuity of the other computing resources in the first computing resource set (Abstract, [0009], and [0032], updating the independent components without updating any dependent components).
With respect to claim 2, Pissey discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to replace the existing computing resource with the second computing resource by:
removing the existing computing resource from the first computing resource set and initiating a new resource access request process, wherein the second computing resource is selected in response to the initiation of the new resource access request process ([0058]).
With respect to claim 5, Pissey discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to replace the existing computing resource with the second computing resource by:
updating the existing computing resource, wherein the second computing resource is an updated version of the existing computing resource (Abstract).
With respect to claim 6, Pissey discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive an indication whether the legacy version of the existing computing resource will be supported ([0027]), wherein the system replaces the existing computing resource in response to an indication that the legacy version of the computing resource will not be supported ([0027]).
With respect to claim 8, Pissey discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
modify a total token value associated with the existing computing resource ([0022], modifying or manipulate one or more features of computer device and/or components or features of the computer device).
With respect to claim 9, Pissey discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of other computing resources is not associated with the update for the existing computing resource ([0009] and [0032]).
With respect to claim(s) 10-11, 14-15, and 17-20, the method and computer program product of claim(s) 10-11, 14-15, and 17-20 does/do not limit or further define over the system of claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9. The limitations of claim(s) 10-11, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9. Therefore, claim(s) 10-11, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9. Please see rejection above.
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) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pissey et al. (US 2017/0109152 A1), in view of Stevens et al. (US 10,992,657 B1).
With respect to claim 3, Pissey discloses the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to initiate the new resource access request process by:
generating a computing resource set registration interface to be presented to a user account that is associated with the existing computing resource; and
receive a new computing resource set for the user account;
However, Stevens discloses generating a computing resource set registration interface to be presented to a user account that is associated with the existing computing resource (Col. 1, lines 56-67, first user account for accessing computing resources); and
receive a new computing resource set for the user account (Col. 1, lines 56-67);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine the teachings of Pissey with the teachings of Stevens and generate a computing resource set registration interface to present to a user account associated with a computing resource, in order to provide accessibility to computing resources and allow users direct access to the resources.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Pissey and Stevens discloses the system of claim 3, wherein Stevens further discloses the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to, for the user account:
store, at a database associated with the dynamic resource assembly system, access privilege data associated with a plurality of constituent computing resources of the new computing resource set and the user account (Col. 16, lines 4-20); and
transmit the access privilege data to one or more of the plurality of constituent computing resources of the new computing resource set, the access privilege data configured to cause association of the user account with the one or more of the plurality of constituent computing resources (Col. 16, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim(s) 12-13, the method and computer program product of claim(s) 12-13 does/do not limit or further define over the system of claim(s) 3-4. The limitations of claim(s) 12-13 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 3-4. Therefore, claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 3-4. Please see rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 September 28, 2026
