DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 05/27/2026.
Claims 1-8, and 21-25 are pending and examined.
Claims 21-25 are new claims.
Response to Arguments
Per 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued "As is known in the art, a web browser is a software application configured to retrieve information from web servers. An e-commerce mobile application is a software program designed to run on mobile devices. Neither a web browser nor an e-commerce mobile application are application packet kits". The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's specification (paragraph [0040]) states "an APK is a package file format (typically for ANDROID Applications) (registered mark of GOOGLE LLC MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA) containing the elements of an application, including resources, certificates, etc". Madden (paragraphs [0026][0036]) discloses an application store providing a mobile application to client in the format of APK, the mobile application running on the client can be used to connect to one or more merchant sites. Thus, an e-commerce mobile application downloaded from an application store is an application packet kit (APK).
Applicant then argued "Here, nothing in Madden, Singleton, or Viegas suggests replacing a cluster-specific APK with a "neutral" APK, because none of these references operates in the same technological context of cluster-based technician routing". Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does not explicitly state “a cluster-based technician routing”. The amended claim states “dynamically transitioning from the initial service cluster to another ser-vicing cluster of the plurality of clusters using the neutral application packet kit”. Madden (paragraphs [0026][0036]) discloses an application store providing a mobile application to client in the format of APK, the mobile application running on the client can be used to connect to one or more merchant sites. Each merchant site is a server cluster. Thus, Madden suggests using a single neutral APK to connect to different clusters, transiting from one merchant/cluster to another merchant/cluster.
Claims 21-25 are new claims, they are rejected under new grounds of rejection with new references applied.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
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 1-3, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden (US PGPUB 2019/0228397), in view of Singleton (US PGPUB 2017/0339563), in view of Viegas et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0362414) hereinafter Viegas.
Per claim 1, Madden discloses “a method comprising: receiving, by a device connected to a communications network, a neutral application packet kit; running, by the device, an instance of an application corresponding to the neutral application packet kit” (paragraph [0026]; downloading from an application store, an application in APK format (application packet kit), executing the application on a device); “requesting, by the application, endpoint data from an authentication cluster of the plurality of clusters on the communications network; receiving, by the application, the endpoint data from the authentication cluster; and connecting, by the application, to the initial servicing cluster using the neutral application packet kit; and dynamically transitioning from the initial service cluster to another servicing cluster of the plurality of clusters using the neutral application packet kit” (paragraph [0036]; executing the application (from the file in APK format), the application authenticates the user by asking the user to submit credentials to a server (authentication cluster), once authenticated (receiving validation), a user may be logged-in to one or more merchant sites (initial servicing cluster and another servicing cluster) and to select products for purchase; i.e. after the authentication, the user may first connect to merchant site A (initial servicing cluster), then connect to merchant site B (another servicing cluster), transiting from one merchant/cluster to another merchant/cluster; the application executes from the file in APK format, thus connecting to the servicing clusters utilizes the neutral application packet kit).
Madden discloses receiving, by the application, the endpoint data from the authentication cluster (paragraph [0036]; after validation, the user gains access to a merchant website (initial servicing cluster)). Madden does not explicitly teach receiving, by the application, the endpoint data that identifies the initial servicing cluster from the authentication cluster sent by the authentication cluster in response to the request for the endpoint data by the application. However, Singleton suggests receiving, by the application, the endpoint data that identifies the initial servicing cluster from the authentication cluster sent by the authentication cluster in response to the request for the endpoint data by the application; connecting, by the application, to the initial servicing cluster identified by the endpoint data; and connecting to another servicing cluster (paragraphs [0101][0102]; an application (a web browser) prompts a user to enter user ID and password, and sends them to an authentication server (requesting validation data), the authentication server returns validation data (endpoint data) to the application, including data indicative of a plurality of websites (URLs identifying an initial servicing cluster and another servicing cluster) and one or more policies for each website; based on the received website policies (endpoint data), the application (web browser) is connected (routed) to websites (initial servicing cluster, another servicing cluster) using the URL contained in the validation data (endpoint data)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden and Singleton that after a user receives validation data (endpoint data) the user gains access to merchant websites (initial servicing cluster and another servicing cluster) identified by the URL in the endpoint data based on website policies, as this enhances the network security (access to unsafe websites is prevented).
Madden discloses an application packet kit can connect to one or more merchant websites, but does not explicitly teach wherein the neutral application packet kit is configured to connect to any of a plurality of clusters and is not configured to function in connection with only a specific cluster of the plurality of clusters. However, Viegas suggests the above (paragraphs [0045][0046]; on a smartphone device, a neutral mobile application (a browser application) is able to access different merchants’ websites residing on different clusters/servers; the browser application is not configured specifically for a particular server). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton and Viegas that a browser application (neutral APK) on a mobile device is able to connect to any of a plurality of clusters, this would improve the versatility of the browser application (instead of using different APK to connect to different clusters).
Per claim 2, Madden further suggests “providing, by the application, identifying data to the authentication cluster; and receiving, by the application, an indication of authentication from the authentication cluster” (paragraph [0036]; executing the application, the application authenticates the user by asking the user to submit credentials to a server (authentication cluster), once authenticated (receiving validation), a user may be logged-in to a merchant site (initial servicing cluster) and to select products for purchase).
Per claim 3, Singleton further suggests “wherein the endpoint data comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the initial servicing cluster and the method further comprises configuring the application to connect to the initial servicing cluster via the communications network using the URL” (paragraphs [0101][0102]; the authentication server returns validation data (endpoint data) to the application, including data indicative of a plurality of websites (URLs identifying an initial servicing cluster) and one or more policies for each website; based on the received website policies (endpoint data), the application (web browser) is connected (routed) to a website (initial servicing cluster) using the URL contained in the validation data (endpoint data)).
Per claim 24, Madden further suggests wherein the device is configured to facilitate tasks of a technician and to operate on a content-based network of a multi-services operator (paragraphs [0036][0007]; a user can use the application running on the device to purchase products and services, the application can access contents of multiple merchants that provide different products and services); wherein the step of dynamically transitioning using the neutral APK includes providing cluster-level authentication, endpoint data exchange, and multi-cluster connectivity absent a new APK download (paragraphs [0026][0036][0007]; download the application as a neutral APK from an application store to a user device, the application provides user authentication service for accessing (data exchange and connecting) different merchant websites (dynamically transitioning from one website to another website); without downloading another APK).
Per claim 25, Madden further suggests wherein the device is configured to enable the technician to continue performing tasks with the another servicing cluster when the initial service cluster fails (paragraphs [0026][0036][0007]; download the application as a neutral APK from an application store to a user device, the application provides user authentication service for accessing different merchant websites; if the device cannot connect to a first merchant’s website (initial service cluster) due to the failure of the first merchant’s server, the device can try to connect to a second merchant’s website (another servicing cluster)).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden, in view of Singleton, in view of Viegas, in view of Miller et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0235389) hereinafter Miller.
Per claim 4, Madden does not explicitly teach “requesting, by the application, cluster settings of the initial servicing cluster from the initial servicing cluster; and receiving, by the application, the cluster settings”. However, Miller suggests the above (paragraphs [0093][0094]; a user logs on to a website (initial servicing cluster), retrieving a profile associated with the user, the profile which contains account settings (cluster settings), which configures the website for the user’s interaction). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Miller to provide cluster settings to a client application, so the client application can be customized to suite the user’s preferences (providing a more user-friendly environment).
Per claim 5, Madden does not explicitly teach “further comprising communication, by the application, with a profile service and causing the profile service to retrieve a profile of a technician associated with the device, wherein the profile includes the endpoint data”. However, Miller suggests the above (paragraphs [0093][0094]; a user logs on to a website (initial servicing cluster), retrieving a profile associated with the user, the profile which contains account settings (a user profile), which configures the website for the user’s interaction). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Miller to provide a user profile to a client application, so the client application can be customized to suite the user’s preferences (providing a more user friendly environment).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden, in view of Singleton, in view of Viegas, in view of JEON (US PGPUB 2021/0226949).
Per claim 6, Madden discloses authenticating a user, but does not explicitly teach “selecting, by the application, the authentication cluster”. However, JEON suggests “selecting, by the application, the authentication cluster” (paragraph [0010]; receiving an authentication request for a terminal; randomly selecting a plurality of nodes (authentication cluster) for authenticating the terminal). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Jeon to randomly select a plurality of nodes (authentication cluster) for authentication purpose, it would enhance security (attackers do not know which nodes perform the authentication process).
Per clam 7, Jeon further suggests “the selection of the authentication cluster is a random selection performed by the application” (paragraph [0010]; receiving an authentication request for a terminal; randomly selecting a plurality of nodes (authentication cluster) for authenticating the terminal).
Per clam 8, Jeon further suggests “the selection of the authentication cluster is performed by a cluster picker application running on the device” (paragraph [0010]; receiving an authentication request for a terminal; randomly selecting a plurality of nodes (authentication cluster) for authenticating the terminal).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden, in view of Singleton, in view of Viegas, in view of Cohen (US PGPUB 2017/0118110).
Per claim 21, Madden does not explicitly teach wherein the dynamically transitioning from the initial service cluster to the another servicing cluster is performed only for a portion of devices that are running the application in conjunction with the initial service cluster. However, Cohen suggests the above (paragraphs [0024][0026][0027]; the edge services cluster acts as a gateway to the servers that implement the service, the edge service cluster receives requests from the client devices and routes the requests to servers that execute software that implements the service; upon receiving a request, the edge service cluster routes the request to one of the production cluster, the baseline cluster; i.e. a group of devices running an application to connect to a service, the requests of a portion of the devices are routed to the baseline cluster (initial service cluster), the requests of a portion of the devices are transitioned to the production cluster (another servicing cluster)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Cohen that only a portion of the devices transition from the initial service cluster to another servicing cluster for load balancing reasons (if all requests are handled by a single cluster, network bandwidth will be clogged).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden, in view of Singleton, in view of Viegas, in view of Matthews et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0156783) hereinafter Matthews.
Per claim 22, Madden discloses (paragraphs [0026][0036]) downloading an application in APK (application packet kit) format from an application store. Madden does not explicitly teach wherein the application packet kit is a packet file format that comprises elements of an application, including resources and certificates. However, this is well-known feature of an application packet kit, as evidenced in Matthews (paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Matthews to store application resources and certificates in the application packet kit, as these elements are necessary for the proper execution of the application.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden, in view of Singleton, in view of Viegas, in view of Cohen, in view of Matthews.
Per claim 23, Madden does not explicitly teach wherein the dynamically transitioning from the initial service cluster to the another servicing cluster is performed only for a portion of devices that are running the application in conjunction with the initial service cluster. However, Cohen suggests the above (paragraphs [0024][0026][0027]; the edge services cluster acts as a gateway to the servers that implement the service, the edge service cluster receives requests from the client devices and routes the requests to servers that execute software that implements the service; upon receiving a request, the edge service cluster routes the request to one of the production cluster, the baseline cluster; i.e. a group of devices running an application to connect to a service, the requests of a portion of the devices are routed to the baseline cluster (initial service cluster), the requests of a portion of the devices are transitioned to the production cluster (another servicing cluster)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas and Cohen that only a portion of the devices transition from the initial service cluster to another servicing cluster for load balancing reasons (if all requests are handled by a single cluster, network bandwidth will be clogged).
Madden also does not explicitly teach wherein the application packet kit is a packet file format that comprises elements of an application, including resources and certificates. However, this is well-known feature of an application packet kit, as evidenced in Matthews (paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Madden, Singleton, Viegas, Cohen and Matthews to store application resources and certificates in the application packet kit, as these elements are necessary for the proper execution of the application.
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights