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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Levi et al. (US 20180285175 A1) teaches elements added and argued from amendments and remarks.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 21-22, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al. (US 20180285175 A1) in view of Piehler et al. (US 9026652 B1) and Alagappan (US 9959256 B1).
Claim 1 Levi teaches a method comprising:
collecting, via a set of functions of a web browser of a user device accessing a target web asset, at least a portion of native code of the target web asset, (FIG. 3, step 304, ¶0037, receiving or collecting via a web interface, i.e. functions of a web browser, client-side code of a web asset) wherein the at least the portion of native code is associated with a set of web services; (¶0011, the code is associated with a web service generated from it)
analyzing the at least the portion of native code collected via the set of functions of the web browser (FIG. 3, step 310, ¶0037, analyzing the code) to identify first code associated with a first web service of the set of web services; (¶0037, identifying web services from the analyzed code portions)
However, Levi does not explicitly teach determining, based on the first code associated with the first web service, a set of relationships between the target web asset, the first web service of the set of web services, and a second web service of the set of web services, wherein the set of relationships comprises:
a first relationship indicating that the target web asset dynamically loads the first web service at runtime of the native code; and
a second relationship indicating that the first web service loads the second web service to the target web asset; and
generating a log including information identifying the target web asset, the first web service, the second web service, and the set of relationships.
From a related technology, Piehler teaches determining, based on the first code associated with the first web service, a set of relationships (FIG. 4, Col. 9, Lines 36-41, determining based on the identified other web services, i.e. the first code, inter-relationship between web services) between the target web asset, (FIG. 4, Col. 9, 42-45, for example, the particular web service) the first web service of the set of web services, and a second web service of the set of web services, (FIG. 4, Col. 9, Lines 42-44, wherein a first and second web service of the set of web services are consumed by the particular web service) wherein the set of relationships comprises:
a first relationship indicating that the first target web asset dynamically loads the first web service at runtime of the native code; (Col. 9, Lines 42-43, a first relationship wherein the target web asset consumes another web service, Col. 9, Line 31-33, wherein consuming of a web service being used during execution, i.e. at runtime of the native code) and
a second relationship indicating that the first web service loads the second web service to the target web asset; (Col. 9, Lines 52-61, a second relationship of one web services consuming another web service, for example, Service A consume Service B) and
generating a log including information identifying the target web asset, the first web service, the second web service, and the set of relationships. (FIG. 4, 404c, Col. 10, Lines 26-45, wherein the relationships between the web assets and services is stored, and wherein the stored relationships comprises a log including information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Levi to incorporate the teachings of Piehler to analyze native code to determine relationships between web services and web assets in order to effectively understand and manage relevant network resources.
Claim 2 Levi in view of Piehler teach Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first web service is loaded by the target web asset by code of the target web asset (Piehler, Col. 9, Lines 42-43, a first relationship wherein the target web asset consumes another web service, Col. 9, Line 31-33, wherein consuming of a web service being used during execution, i.e. at runtime of the native code) or one or more tools of a website comprising the target web asset.
Claims 21-22 are taught by Levi in view of Piehler as described for Claims 1-2 and 5 respectively.
Claims 26-27 are taught by Levi in view of Piehler as described for Claims 1-2 and 5 respectively.
3. Claims 5, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al. (US 20180285175 A1) in view of Piehler et al. (US 9026652 B1) and in further view of Rosenthal (US 20150163279 A1).
Claim 5 Levi in view of Piehler teach Claim 1, does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more data attributes comprise information identifying one or more communications between the first web service and the second web service.
From a related technology, Rosenthal teaches wherein the one or more data attributes comprise information identifying one or more communications between the first web service and the second web service. (FIG. 6, ¶0053, wherein user input data comprises information that identifies communications between a first and second web service, for example, the input identifying data transfers between Web Service S and Web Service D)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Levi in view of Piehler to monitor and gather data that details communications between web services as taught in Rosenthal in order to better manage content and user activity across various web services.
Claim 25 is taught by Levi in view of Piehler, & Rosenthal as described for Claim 5.
Claim 30 is taught by Levi in view of Piehler, & Rosenthal as described for Claim 5.
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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights